CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. More than two decades ago, Mary Jane Johns kidnapped her ex-girlfriend at gunpoint and sexually assaulted her. Following her arrest and pretrial release, Johns absconded from federal law enforcement, staying on the lam for roughly 16 years. When the law eventually caught up to Johns, she was convicted of three separate federal offenses, resulting in a 168-month sentence. Intervening Supreme Court jurisprudence, however, cast doubt on the viability of one of those charges. Accordingly, the district court resentenced Johns to 151 months in prison for the remaining charges. Johns asserts that her new sentence is unreasonable. For the reasons stated, we affirm.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. The placement of a bump stock on a semiautomatic rifle causes the rifle to function essentially like a machinegun by dramatically increasing the rate of fire. And the possession of a machinegun is a criminal offense under the Gun Control Act of 1968. This raises the question of whether a bump stock is a machinegun “part” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The question is a close one on which reasonable jurists have disagreed, a disagreement caused by ambiguities in how the applicable statute defines the term “machinegun.”

An Act of Congress could clear up the ambiguities, but so far Congress has failed to act. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (the ATF) has been on both sides of this issue, with its current regulation (the Rule) banning bump stocks as a machinegun part. In this situation, the rule of lenity that is applicable to criminal offenses requires us to rule in favor of Hardin. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.