WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 06, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The full bench of the Fifth Circuit reigns today that a bump stock does not fall within the definition of “machine gun” as set out in federal law. As such, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) lacked the legal authority to enact the final rule prohibiting supplies. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, represents gun shop owner, Army veteran and weapons instructor Michael Cargill Michael Cargill vs. Merrick B. Garland, et al. The NCLA welcomes this decision, which not only allows our client to retain his property, but also prevents the ATF’s unlawful attempt to rewrite a criminal law.

the en banc Court addressed which branch of government has the constitutional authority to amend criminal law when amendments are warranted. The NCLA argued that: (1) the final rule contradicts the legal definition of a machine gun and thus exceeds the powers of the ATF; (2) ATF’s construction is not authorized rafters deference; (3) to the extent that the courts find that the definition of machine guns in relation to bump sticks is ambiguous, they should apply the rule of leniency in determining that bump sticks are not machine guns; and (4) if the statute were interpreted to authorize ATF’s declaration that bump stocks are prohibited machine guns, then the statute would be an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional legislative power.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the NCLA on each of these points.

The current law, passed in 1986, bans “machine guns” in any way that does not include mechanical shock stores. The evidence in court showed conclusively that a semi-automatic rifle fitted with a non-mechanical buttstock is not a weapon that “automatically fires more than one shot, is designed to fire, or can be easily restored to firing … by a single function.” the trigger. In the 13-3 decision, the Fifth Circuit followed the…