Previous post
The ATF issued a bump stock ban after the horrific shooting at the Las Vegas concert in 2017. SCOTUS ruled yesterday that the ATF overstepped their constitutional boundaries with this ban.
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a ban on bump stocks, which enable semiautomatic rifles to fire at speeds rivaling those of machine guns, erasing one of the government’s rare firearm regulations to result from a mass shooting.
Read the above carefully, and then read the following from the same article.
The decision was a forceful rejection of one of the government’s few steps to address gun violence, particularly as legislative efforts have stalled in Congress. It also highlighted the deep divisions on the court as the country continues to grapple with mass shootings.
The narrowly written decision was not a Second Amendment challenge. Rather, it is one of several cases this term seeking to undercut the power of administrative agencies. The court has yet to issue many of those opinions, including a challenge to a seminal precedent known as Chevron. However, the bump stock decision could signal support among the conservative justices for curbing the authority of administrative agencies.
Stop and think about this for a minute. After the Las Vegas tragedy, the gun control crowd went after bump stocks and weapons bans with all their might. They wanted everything and anything regarding guns, including accessories, banned outright.
And so, the ATF decided to ban bump stocks. But the ATF, as much as they are trying to gaslight now, did NOT have the power to do so!
Only CONGRESS has that power, yet they did not act. Congress didn’t do a damned thing. Not even the Democrats tried anything.
Again, this ruling wasn’t on Second Amendment grounds. It’s a ruling, whether anyone in the gun control crowd wants to acknowledge it or not, about a government agency overstepping its boundaries without the consent of the governed.
Mark Chenoweth, president and chief legal officer of the New Civil Liberties Alliance that brought the case to the Supreme Court, said the ruling dealt with a single gun law but would have a broader impact.
“This case underscores the principal that agencies cannot regulate beyond their statutory authorization,” Chenoweth said. “I think the case will reverberate well outside the ATF context.”
In other words, if WE the people want a bump stock ban, then we should have Congress put one in place. But the reality was, Congress didn’t want to act then or now. Just virtue signal with nothing to show for it.
Which ticks off the gun control crowd to no end.
It's absurd agencies have to follow the Constitution pic.twitter.com/PmjrUu29eC
— BadGunControlTakes (@guncontroltakes) June 14, 2024
Yes, Shannon Watts is definitely tops in the ZOMG! The sky is falling! category. But there are others.
To the conservative justices—who cavalierly subject us to mass slaughter while cocooned in their ever-expanding security details—this case is about sticking it to ATF. To the future victims of bump-stock–enabled shootings, it's matter of life and death.https://t.co/k6QtlYVsxX
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 14, 2024
Mark will never admit that the REASON why Justice Thomas and others need full-time security is due to their fellow rioting loons who have continually advocated for the death of conservatives justices on SCOTUS, and continue to harass them at their homes!
And then there’s this one, which really does seem like a threat.
In a now deleted tweet, mentally ill @MomsDemand drone @graubart (who also attended Gun Sense University this past weekend in DC) suggests murdering SCOTUS Justices with bump stock equipped AR-15s would be a smart idea.
— avsterbone (@avsterbone) June 14, 2024
h/t @jsflores95 pic.twitter.com/i1SZjaTTve
He seems super nice doesn’t he?
Keep in mind that there is already a full and detailed definition of what a machine gun is and isn’t. That definition was developed, written, and voted into law BY Congress.
What the ATF did was essentially try a ‘let’s shove a square peg into a round hole’ gambit. Vox’s Ian Millhiser is, of course, claiming that machine guns have now been legalized with this ruling.
The six Republican justices handed down a decision on Friday that effectively legalizes civilian ownership of automatic weapons. All three of the Court’s Democrats dissented.
The Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill involves bump stocks, devices that allow ordinary semiautomatic weapons that can legally be owned by civilians to automatically fire, much like a machine gun designed for that purpose. Bump stocks cause a semiautomatic gun’s trigger to buck against the shooter’s finger, repeatedly “bumping” the trigger and making the gun rapidly fire.
Way to fear-monger guys! Ian, I give you a B- for effort! Once again you show the world you know zip and nada about guns.
As Amy Swearer points out, this is NOT the case:
*sigh*
So what actually happened is that SCOTUS said machineguns have an actual definition established by Congress, bump stocks are by that definition not machineguns, and if any entity wants to change that it has to he Congress and not unelected bureaucrats.
I tell you, the gun control crowd definitely has their hair on fire with this ruling! They are willfully and deliberately ignoring the fact that this ruling, which you can read here, had EVERYTHING to do with a regulatory agency overstepping their bounds, and nothing to do with the Second Amendment itself.
I WON 6-3 Garland vs Cargill@centexguns @ComeAndTalkIt @NCLAlegal #bumpstock #CargillVGarland pic.twitter.com/g3K7FcGU6g
— Michael Cargill (@michaeldcargill) June 14, 2024
What happened in Las Vegas in 2017 was horrific. While we still have zero understanding of the shooter’s motive, what reality tells us is that it was the SHOOTER who was at fault. Not the weapon and not the accessories used.
A regulatory agency overstepped Constitutionally and SCOTUS rightfully so, sent them to the woodshed.
Feature Photo Credit: ATF logo via iStock, cropped and modified
Scott says: “What happened in Las Vegas in 2017 was horrific. While we still have zero understanding of the shooter’s motive,” Because he and his muslim connections didn’t fit the narrative, and the feds buried it.. just like the manifesto of the tranny shooter in Nashville.. we’ll never see the truth because the deep state Fan Belt Inspectors, just like the ATF think they are above the law.
This is a HUGE win for the Constitution and the citizens of the United States… which is why the left is so upset… They don’t want “We the People” to have any power or rights… SCOTUS definitely got this one right. (well, except for the “wise latina”, the one that can’t define a woman, and their crony…)
Cameron says: The decision was a forceful rejection of one of the government’s few steps to address gun violence
We have over 20,000 laws on the books addressing this.
particularly as legislative efforts have stalled in Congress
Our Congress is not supposed to ram laws through like they want. Things are supposed to be debated and for good reason.
They are willfully and deliberately ignoring the fact that this ruling, which you can read here, had EVERYTHING to do with a regulatory agency overstepping their bounds, and nothing to do with the Second Amendment itself.
Gun control advocates want the 2nd repealed and all laws allowing personal ownership of firearms repealed. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or willfully deceived.
rbj1 says: I can only wish SCOTUS voided the National Firearms act of 1934 and subsequent legislation. But with the price of ammunition these days I doubt I’d fire a machine gun very often.
GWB says: seeking to undercut the power of administrative agencies
IOW, seeking to require the people whose job it is to actually do their jobs, instead of entirely unaccountable and way out of control groups the Constitution says can’t do that. Yes, we want to “undercut” the unconstitutional power of an unelected tyranny.
a seminal precedent known as Chevron
“Seminal”. Isn’t that a misogynistic word to use?
Also, Chevron was a Progressive precedent that started all this unconstitutionality. So, yeah, overturning that is kind of a priority. For people who whine a lot about “protecting democracy” they sure don’t seem to understand the concept.
who cavalierly subject us to mass slaughter
“Subject”. You keep using that word….
Keep in mind that there is already a full and detailed definition of what a machine gun is and isn’t. That definition was developed, written, and voted into law BY Congress.
Along with your comment about trying to change said definition, THIS IS THE KEY. There is a legal definition, and the bump stock does not meet it. Congress could easily change it to ban bump stocks and similar silly items*, but they won’t. Talk to them. Of course, then Congress would be re-opening the can of worms that is the unconstitutionality of banning arms, in general.
(* Yes, silly. A bump stock is a not very good way to improve the rate of fire of a firearm. As is the new “gatling” trigger thing. They wouldn’t really be useful for the sort of things automatic weapons are used for, and they induce issues.)
effectively legalizes civilian ownership of automatic weapons
Aside from the fact that automatic weapons are already legal (though highly regulated, to the point they are nearly impossible to buy), a bump stock equipped rifle is NOT an automatic weapon. It’s just a way for a very lazy person to pull the trigger rapidly.
repeatedly “bumping” the trigger
IOW, EXACTLY. LIKE. THE. SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON. IT. WAS. BEFORE.
SCOTUS … sent them to the woodshed
FINALLY. It’s nice to have a court that has a majority of folks who have actually READ the Constitution.
4 Comments