Last week, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Garland v Cargill, a case regarding the banning of bump stocks by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, or ATF for short), per a directive from then-President Donald Trump.
This is the same manner in which the Left elides constitutional amendments. "It's too hard!" So they just pack courts with judges who dictate the legislation they favor.
Bump stocks are relatively new. I think that its use which allows someone to spew out a volume of fire comparable to an automatic weapon should put the firearm into the same category. If you are going to expect Congress to have to pass a law every time a new invention manages to circumvent its intent then that's where I have to part company.
It’s not about firearms: it’s about allowing agencies to “make rules” as opposed to demanding Congress DO THEIR JOB and stop all the “performance art” and pass laws. (And, no, I don’t own one, and am not going to buy one, but, they do NOT convert firearms into “machine guns.”)
I know you're OK granting sweeping power to unelected bureaucrats and administrative agencies, but you've also on many occasions written about people voting for the changes they want via the representatives they elect.
You can't have it both ways. Bureaucrats don't get elected. Sure, the President who heads the bureaucracy gets elected, but the President does not have the power to write law. That is foundational to how the country runs.
Bump stocks were declared *not* machineguns ten times by the ATF before they suddenly were. The law matters, and lawmaking has been assigned to lawmakers, not to the people charged with executing the laws that the lawmakers wrote.
Why have a Congress at all, if its laws can be contorted however the executive branch wishes?
I wasn't aware that bump stocks were declared multiple times as not machine guns by the ATF. Thank you for the info. I agree with you then that it's up to Congress to change the law.
This is the same manner in which the Left elides constitutional amendments. "It's too hard!" So they just pack courts with judges who dictate the legislation they favor.
Bump stocks are relatively new. I think that its use which allows someone to spew out a volume of fire comparable to an automatic weapon should put the firearm into the same category. If you are going to expect Congress to have to pass a law every time a new invention manages to circumvent its intent then that's where I have to part company.
It’s not about firearms: it’s about allowing agencies to “make rules” as opposed to demanding Congress DO THEIR JOB and stop all the “performance art” and pass laws. (And, no, I don’t own one, and am not going to buy one, but, they do NOT convert firearms into “machine guns.”)
If it allows me to have a similar volume of fire then it's hard not to see how it shouldn't be regulated the same way as a machine gun.
I know you're OK granting sweeping power to unelected bureaucrats and administrative agencies, but you've also on many occasions written about people voting for the changes they want via the representatives they elect.
You can't have it both ways. Bureaucrats don't get elected. Sure, the President who heads the bureaucracy gets elected, but the President does not have the power to write law. That is foundational to how the country runs.
Bump stocks were declared *not* machineguns ten times by the ATF before they suddenly were. The law matters, and lawmaking has been assigned to lawmakers, not to the people charged with executing the laws that the lawmakers wrote.
Why have a Congress at all, if its laws can be contorted however the executive branch wishes?
I wasn't aware that bump stocks were declared multiple times as not machine guns by the ATF. Thank you for the info. I agree with you then that it's up to Congress to change the law.
If we only had one more gun law then all of this carnage would magically stop!