SCOTUS: Bump Stocks Are Back On The Menu
And the critical piece of the SCOTUS decision is a big deal
When I first saw the SCOTUS decision in Cargill (the Bump Stock ban case), I had an irreverent thought that made me chuckle and then led to me creating a new meme using everyone’s favorite Orc talking about meat on the menu.
This is certain to make liberal/progressive/left/anti-gunner heads explode, so we might as well have a fun meme for it :-)
That said, aside from overturning yet another incremental attempt at disarming us without actually changing the Constitution, Cargill is pretty important. The decision goes beyond smacking down ATF for trying to define a semi-automatic rifle as a machine-gun, although it does a great job of that. In fact, much of the decision is spent on explaining how a semi-automatic rifle functions, how a machine-gun functions, and how a bump stock functions. They even manage to do this in pretty plain English that most anyone can understand.
All of this is great and makes it plain that a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock is not a machine-gun. A machine-gun fires automatically with a single function of the trigger. A semi-automatic rifle, even with a bump stock, requires a single function of the trigger each time the rifle fires. One of these things is not like the other.
I read the whole decision, as I said, and this part is really the critical piece. It goes well beyond the narrow question of the function of a bump stock and whether that makes it a machine-gun and gets into the Separation of Powers.
In any event, Congress could have linked the definition of “machinegun” to a weapon’s rate of fire, as the dissent would prefer. But, it instead enacted a statute that turns on whether a weapon can fire more than one shot “automatically . . . by a single function of the trigger.” §5845(b). And, “it is never our job to rewrite . . . statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done.”
If Congress passes a bill that is within its Constitutional powers and authority and the President signs it, that’s that. It’s now the law of the land. And the Courts and Executive Branch bureaucracies are not allowed to change it as they see fit. Only Congress can do that. Indeed, Congress could have passed a bill (and the President likely would have signed it) to make bump stocks illegal. Congress did not. The ATF has no Constitutional authority to override Congress.
For those who aren’t sure how all this works, I will refer you to Schoolhouse Rock.
Meanwhile, SCOTUS just smacked the ATF down and that is a good thing.
Slap down the bureaucrats once and you have a win. But you still have a couple million bureaucrats determined to follow their own preferences rather than the law.
The anti-gun commentary I’ve read on it is screaming “blood in the streets.” The case isn’t really a Second Amendment case. It’s an administrative law and statutory interpretation case. The law says what it says. What the government wanted to do goes beyond what it says, and goes beyond even a reasonable interpretation what it says assuming a quantum of ambiguity.
I’m more worried about those who think it’s okay for the government to do whatever it wants for whatever reasons it feels are “right” regardless of what the law actually says. Where does that stop? What happens when your team is not in charge?