Cargill v. Garland

No. 19-cv-349 (W.D. Tex. 2023)

Federal & State Law Editorial TeamLast reviewed: July 2026

Opinion Summary

Challenged the ATF's rule classifying bump stocks as machine guns under the National Firearms Act. The case raised questions about the scope of executive agency authority to reinterpret criminal statutes and whether bump stocks meet the statutory definition of a machine gun. Later resolved by the Supreme Court in Garland v. Cargill (2024).

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look for Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks on one of Wikipedia's sister projects :

[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search/Cargill_v._Garland_Bump_Stocks "wiktionary:Special:Search/Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks")
 (dictionary)

[Wikibooks](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Search/Cargill_v._Garland_Bump_Stocks "wikibooks:Special:Search/Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks")
 (textbooks)

[Wikiquote](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Search/Cargill_v._Garland_Bump_Stocks "wikiquote:Special:Search/Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks")
 (quotations)

[Wikisource](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search/Cargill_v._Garland_Bump_Stocks "wikisource:Special:Search/Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks")
 (library)

[Wikiversity](https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Search/Cargill_v._Garland_Bump_Stocks "wikiversity:Special:Search/Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks")
 (learning resources)

[Commons](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Cargill_v._Garland_Bump_Stocks "commons:Special:Search/Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks")
 (media)

[Wikivoyage](https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:Search/Cargill_v._Garland_Bump_Stocks "wikivoyage:Special:Search/Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks")
 (travel guide)

[Wikidata](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Search/Cargill_v._Garland_Bump_Stocks "wikidata:Special:Search/Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks")
 (linked database)

[Wikispecies](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Cargill_v._Garland_Bump_Stocks "wikispecies:Special:Search/Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks")
 (species directory)

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

You need to log in or create an account and be autoconfirmed to create new articles. Alternatively, you can use the article wizard to submit a draft for review, or request a new article .
Search for "Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks" in existing articles.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title .

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes or try the purge function .
Titles on Wikipedia are **case sensitive ** except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log , and see Why was the page I created deleted?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill_v._Garland_Bump_Stocks "

Cargill v. Garland Bump Stocks

Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

Related Cases

Schenck v. United States

249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Upheld the Espionage Act conviction of a man distributing anti-draft leaflets during World War I. Justice Holmes introduced the 'clear and present danger' test for limiting free speech, stating that 'the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre.' The clear and present danger test was later replaced by the Brandenburg incitement test.

Gideon v. Wainwright

372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Unanimously held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. States must provide attorneys for criminal defendants who cannot afford them. Clarence Earl Gideon, who had represented himself and lost, was acquitted at retrial with appointed counsel.

Miranda v. Arizona

384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination requires law enforcement to advise suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation. The now-famous Miranda warnings include the right to remain silent, that statements may be used against the suspect, the right to counsel, and that counsel will be appointed if the suspect cannot afford one.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Established the modern incitement test for the First Amendment, holding that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. Overruled the earlier 'clear and present danger' test from Schenck, providing the strongest protection for political speech.

United States v. Nixon

418 U.S. 683 (1974)

Unanimously held that the President does not have absolute executive privilege to withhold evidence in a criminal proceeding. President Nixon was ordered to produce tape recordings and documents subpoenaed by the Watergate special prosecutor. The decision led directly to Nixon's resignation sixteen days later.

Case Information

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
Court Level: U.S. District Court
Date Decided: Friday, January 6, 2023
Citation: No. 19-cv-349 (W.D. Tex. 2023)
Jurisdiction: United States Federal

Legal Topics

firearms lawcriminal

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.