WASHINGTON – In 2018, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) took the unprecedented step of classifying bump stocks as machineguns, thereby criminalizing their possession. According to the Chevron doctrine, agencies are given deference in how they interpret statutes under their jurisdiction, too often disregarding Congressional intent and lending itself to activist mischief.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear argument in Garland v. Cargill, a case questioning whether a “bump stock” is truly a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) due to its ability to significantly increase the firing speed of a rifle. U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) joined an amicus brief asserting the ATF’s ban on bump stocks weaponizes the Chevron doctrine and is an egregious violation of the Second Amendment.

“The ATF’s 2018 decision to ban bump stocks exemplifies the federal overreach the Chevron doctrine enables,” said Cramer. “It is a well-known fact, even by ATF’s own admission, the installation of a bump stock does not magically turn a rifle into a machinegun. Nevertheless, their stance shifted overnight, leading to an outright ban. The Supreme Court should reaffirm the Second Amendment and put an end to agencies’ ability to use Chevron as a shield for their activist ambitions.”

The amicus brief states the Court should hold Chevron deference inapplicable to the interpretation of criminal statutes, including the National Firearms Act’s definition of “machinegun” at issue in this case.

“Granting deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute when the agency has both formulated the interpretation and is responsible for bringing criminal prosecutions under its interpretation raises especially serious separation of powers and due process concerns,” the brief states. “Additionally, as this case evidences, Chevron can often result in wild swings in policy as new Presidents take office. Interpretation of criminal statutes is poorly suited to agency reversals of the type that Chevron enables.”

“Additionally, this Court should apply the Rule of Lenity to hold Congress accountable for clear drafting of criminal statutes. Such statutes are subject to higher substantive and procedural protections under the Constitution because penal sanctions deprive citizens of life, liberty and property. This Court enforces the separation of powers and democratic accountability when the Court requires Congress to speak clearly and precisely in enacting statutes,” the brief continued. “The reasonable-doubt standard for the Rule of Lenity is the least subjective formulation of the canon and has significant grounding in our Nation’s history and jurisprudence.”

The amicus brief was led by U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). Additional cosigners include U.S. Senators John Barrasso (R-WY), Mike Lee (R-UT), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Markwayne Mullin (R-OK).

Click here for the amicus brief.