In a defeat for the Biden gun control agenda, a federal court in Texas has officially recognized the right to own bump stocks in light of the Supreme Court's ruling this summer that struck down an ATF rule banning the device.
U.S. District for the Western District of Texas Alan Ezra vacated the ATF rule in the case Garland v. Cargill, recognizing the "right to possess" bump stocks.
The case was brought by Texas gun shop owner Michael Cargill, who gave up his bump stocks following the Trump administration's ban.
In a ruling Monday, Judge Ezra declared that Cargill "has the right to possess and transfer non-mechanical bump stocks under federal law, and that the federal statutory prohibitions against the possession and transfer of machineguns…do not limit Mr. Cargill’s rights or legal relations in this regard.”
Cargill was represented by New Civil Liberties Alliance, which won a victory before the Supreme Court in the case this June. In the 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court recognized held that bump stocks are not machine guns under the National Firearms Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had previously ruled in 2023 that a bump stock ban requires an act of Congress, ordering Ezra to enter judgment in Cargill's favor. Ezra entered judgment but denied Cargill any relief.
After the Supreme Court's ruling, the Fifth Circuit vacated Ezra's denial of Cargill's motion and sent the case back to judge Ezra to "consider alterations to the judgment or other relief[]."
On Monday, the judge amended the final judgment to vacate the ATF's rule.
"Consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s instruction, the District Court has now altered the judgment to vacate the Final Rule and declared that Mr. Cargill has the right to own bump stocks under federal law," the New Civil Liberties Alliance declared.
“The Government’s attempt to limit relief to just Mr. Cargill would have left in place ATF’s rule that the Supreme Court said was unlawful, and each person would have had to separately challenge that unlawful rule to get the same relief. Fortunately, such a convoluted and burdensome process is unnecessary because the Administrative Procedure Act commands federal courts to ‘set aside’ unlawful rules, meaning vacate them for everyone in the country," Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, NCLA, said.
