#22-976 Garland versus Cargill

The ATF is Correct.
By Steven J. Grisafi, PhD.

Today the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling on the case #22-976, Garland versus Cargill. After reading a news report of the Court’s decision I decided to read the ruling for myself. A 6 to 3 majority held for Cargill that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded the authority invested to it from the National Firearms Act of 1934 when the Bureau classified semi-automatic firearms enhanced with a bump stock as a “machine gun.” I find the arguments of the majority to be erroneous and hereby reverse their nonsense for the ATF and the mechanically literate people of America.

One cannot ignore the need to eject the spent cartridge and feed a new unspent cartridge into its place. This is what truly defines the “function of the trigger.” No repeating firearm can fire more than once without first removing the spent cartridge from the firing chamber. This includes the first “machine gun” the Gatling Gun. Therefore, first and foremost, we need to address the method through which a fresh cartridge is placed into the firing chamber and a spent cartridge is removed from it. It is the same “function” for both the semi-automatic and the automatic firearm. What causes the spent cartridge shell to eject is the expansion of the hot gases from the combustion of the gunpowder. The motions to eject the spent cartridge and replace it with a new cartridge both occur by the same means, an expansion of hot gases and the action of a spring, in both the semi-automatic and the automatic firearm.

The absolute motions of the trigger finger or the stock-frame of the firearm are irrelevant. The majority has tried to argue that the motions of the trigger and the firearm forearm are two distinct motions. Only their relative motion is significant. The two perspectives are equivalent because one may set the frame of reference anywhere one chooses. This is analogous to a “Lagrangian” versus an “Eulerian” viewpoint for mechanical motions. With a Lagrangian perspective the reference frame would be set upon the observer. With a Eulerian perspective the reference frame would be set upon the object. Mechanical analysis makes no distinction between the two perspectives. Mechanically they are equivalent.

The majority proposed the argument that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock is indistinguishable from the Ithaca Model 37 shotgun with regard to its capacity for firing repeatedly. This is complete nonsense. The Ithaca Model 37 shotgun is a pump-action firearm. It is not the expansion of hot gases that ejects a spent cartridge, and feeds a new fresh cartridge, into the firing chamber for any firearm, rifled or smooth-bore, with a pump-action mechanism. With a pump-action firearm a spent cartridge is thrown mechanically from the chamber after firing by a moving conveyance powered by the motion of the pumped forearm piece. Both the semi-automatic and automatic firearms utilize the expansion of hot gases and the action of a spring to unload and reload the firing chamber. This is completely absent within the pump-action mechanism.

While offering his concurring opinion with the majority, Justice Alito takes the task to assert that he believes the authors of the National Firearms Act of 1934 would see no material difference between a machine-gun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But he still concurs with the majority believing that the text of the law as written compels him to recognize a material difference between the two. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor discounts any distinctions between the two operating mechanisms and considers as relevant only the performance of the firearms. I would acquiesce to both Justice Alito and Justice Sotomayor while asserting that neither focused their attention primarily upon what truly defines an automatic functioning of the trigger.