The nation's high court signaled last week it was ready to hear two closely watched cases that could have a substantial impact on guns in America. 
 

Bump stocks

The case of Garland v. Cargill concerns the ATF's 2018 unilateral bump stock ban, which is challenged by the New Civil Liberties Alliance and a Texas gun shop owner on the grounds of being unconstitutional and an overreach by the agency.
 
In a 13-2 ruling handed down in a New Orleans federal courthouse on Jan. 6, 2023, the 5th Circuit said that an act of Congress is required to prohibit bump stocks and that the ATF's rule exceeded its authority. That ruling was at odds with the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit, the Denver-based 10th Circuit, and the Federal Circuit Court for Washington, D.C. This split, with the question if a bump stock is a machine gun, requires the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the case after batting away several other requested reviews on the subject last year, argues the U.S. Solicitor General. 
 
Going far past the subject of bump stocks, the ruling, if upheld by the high court, could be a harbinger of things to come for sweeping new de-facto laws regulating the definition of frames and receivers along with the ban on stabilizing braces shoehorned into action by the ATF via the rulemaking process, which, like the prohibition on bump stocks, bypassed Congress. 
 
"This is not a case about gun rights. It is a case about administrative power," said Mark Chenoweth, the NCLA's president and general counsel. "Congress never gave ATF the power to rewrite federal criminal statutes pertaining to machine guns – nor could it. Writing federal criminal laws is the sole preserve of Congress, and the Trump and Biden Administrations committed grievous constitutional error by trying to ban bump stocks without involving Congress. We are confident the U.S. Supreme Court will right this wrong for Michael Cargill and all Americans."
 
Guns.com caught up with Michael Cargill at SHOT Show earlier this year to get a quick rundown on the progress of the case. 
 

First Amendment Case

The National Rifle Association in May 2018 brought a federal lawsuit against Maria T. Vullo, then the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, over allegations that, working under orders from since-resigned New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the state conspired to have the pro-gun group “financially blacklisted," urging banks and insurers to cut ties with the Association to suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech.
 
After winding its way through the courts for the past half-decade, including a September 2022 ruling from the Second Circuit that the NRA argues "opened the door to unrestrained harassment of advocacy groups by state officials," the U.S. Supreme Court last week granted a review of the question: 

Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy?

"We are grateful the Supreme Court will review this First Amendment case and excited by the opportunity to argue to the Court that a government regulator cannot take adverse action against its political enemies,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. "The ruling from the Second Circuit condones public officials having unbridled power to attack those with whom they disagree."
 
Banner image: Ad for Slide Fire Solutions, a former pre-2018 bump stock maker.