SCOTUS refuses bump stock case

[ladder13]

SCOTUS denied review of Guedes vs BATFE. The case was about whether BATFE had the authority to ban bump stocks.


Supreme Court Turns Away Challenge To Bump Stock Ban

[GaryS]

This case is dead, but there are other bump stock challenges making their way through the federal court system, so the issue may not be.

[rednichols]

The ban stands: good decision. Bump stocks: bad decision (Las Vegas is on the line). What's wrong? The bump stocks should not have been approved in the first place, nor invented and sold in the first place. "Sometimes illegal, always wrong" comes to mind. This has been my position since I first discovered they existed from news of the LV massacre.

[Watchdog]

The president, not the BATFE, made the decision to ban bump stocks in December of 2018. The BATFE didn't just pull the ban out of their hat.

The BATFE is part of the Justice Department. At the express direction of the president, the Justice Department created a new regulation which changed the BATFE'S designation of bump stocks.

Quoting from that new regulation (bold print is mine):

"The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump-stock-type devices-meaning "bump fire" stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics-are 'machine guns' as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger."

Don't take my word for it, though. Read the regulation by clicking here.

Although Justice Neil Gorsuch sort of wondered why lower courts went along with the reasoning behind the ban, he still agreed with the other Justices that the case didn't merit hearing at the Supreme Court level. He did not advocate the Court hearing the case. I don't believe Gorsuch has turned out to be quite the Second Amendment hero some people thought he would be. Or maybe the right case just hasn't come before the Court yet, who knows?

I wonder why this is a Second Amendment topic, anyway. No one is saying you can't have an AR or an AK or whatever semi-auto AR-style rifle you want. Buy as many of the things you want. The law is just saying gun owners can't modify that rifle and turn it into a machine gun. Want a machine gun? Do the paperwork, pay the fees/taxes and buy one. Or buy a bunch of rubber bands and "modify" the AR that way, whichever you prefer.

The whole bump stock thing has been beaten to death on every gun forum on the Internet and by every gun rights organization on the planet. It's a dead issue far as I'm concerned.

[stansdds]

Well said, Watchdog, well said.

[Recusant]

Braces will be next.

[Echo40]

Originally Posted by Recusant

Braces will be next.

It's a slippery slope.

That's what folks who support the Bump Stock Ban need to understand.

First they ban firearms peripherals, then the next thing you know you're no longer allowed to have your teeth straightened.

[GaryS]

While I never had any interest in a bump stock, the way the ban was enacted sets a bad precedent.

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry Callahan

It's a slippery slope.

That's what folks who support the Bump Stock Ban need to understand.

First they ban firearms peripherals, then the next thing you know you're no longer allowed to have your teeth straightened.

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by GaryS

While I never had any interest in a bump stock, the way the ban was enacted sets a bad precedent.

The President of the United States...who millions of gun owners, sportsmen, and NRA members profess to love, respect, and admire...exercised his Constitutional authority by directing the Justice Department to create a new regulation that would ban bump stocks nationwide. "Bad precedent" or not (and that's open to interpretation), he did nothing illegal and was within his rights to do so.

Now that's a fact, and there's no two ways about it. It was national (maybe even international) news when he did it in December of 2018.

Lots of presidents have done things the people didn't like. So c'mon...what are gun owners gonna do? He's the president. Like it or not, he's the Boss, and the bump stock ban still stands.

More of these little lawsuits will probably continue to wend their way through the court system and will probably meet the same fate as this most recent one, which really shouldn't surprise anyone.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by rednichols

The ban stands: good decision. Bump stocks: bad decision (Las Vegas is on the line). What's wrong? The bump stocks should not have been approved in the first place, nor invented and sold in the first place. "Sometimes illegal, always wrong" comes to mind. This has been my position since I first discovered they existed from news of the LV massacre.

You’re entitled to your opinion, it’s your opinion.

[GaryS]

It stands... for now. Whether or not it is legal has yet to be determined. There are, as noted, other challenges making their way through the courts.

SCOTUS will often decline to hear cases or even reject a challenge because of "standing" or because the case is not "ripe" for a decision.

They like clean cases that for which a decision will not cause more problems than it solves.

As an example only, the current abortion case may turn on a question of standing, as opposed to the merits of the case. The parties suing to overturn that law may not have standing to sue.

The workings of the Supreme Court are very complex. I don't have more than a surface understanding of how they arrive at decisions, but do know that sometimes it's more (or less) than the merits of the case.

Originally Posted by Watchdog

The President of the United States...who millions of gun owners, sportsmen, and NRA members profess to love, respect, and admire...exercised his Constitutional authority by directing the Justice Department to create a new regulation that would ban bump stocks nationwide. "Bad precedent" or not (and that's open to interpretation), he did nothing illegal and was within his rights to do so.

Now that's a fact, and there's no two ways about it. It was national (maybe even international) news when he did it in December of 2018.

Lots of presidents have done things the people didn't like. So c'mon...what are gun owners gonna do? He's the president. Like it or not, he's the Boss, and the bump stock ban still stands.

More of these little lawsuits will probably continue to wend their way through the court system and will probably meet the same fate as this most recent one, which really shouldn't surprise anyone.

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry Callahan

...then the next thing you know you're no longer allowed to have your teeth straightened.

The government better be careful. The Orthodontist Lobby has deep pockets and is a force to be reckoned with.

[rednichols]

Originally Posted by ladder13

You’re entitled to your opinion, it’s your opinion.

Yes it is :-). Anyone who thought a bump stock was a good idea because it 'cleverly' got around a legitimate law that regulated automatic firing (and equally 'cleverly' ignored the physics that need an open bolt to cool the barrel -- which is why the Vegas shooter had so many jammed rifles at the scene) instead had a bad idea. Bad bad bad bad and hundreds of the dead and the wounded to prove it. Three cheers for the President and for the Supreme Court.

[stansdds]

My issue with this ban and the SOCTUS's refusal to hear the case is that it may be setting the precedent for this or another President to enact law without congressional approval. This circumvents the checks and balances that were built into our form of government as set forth in the constitution. Sadly, congress delegated its authority to create law to unelected bureaus and, if the President can create law by directing a bureau to do something, then there is far less of a check on Presidential power.

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by stansdds

My issue with this ban and the SCOTUS's refusal to hear the case is that it may be setting the precedent for this or another President to enact law without congressional approval.

The bump stock ban is not a federal law. It's a revised rule or regulation in a federal agency. Federal agencies do it all the time, with or without a president's urging. It's like the fine print in stuff you buy...like, "Product specifications and warranty conditions may change without notice."

If Congress (especially the present Congress) thought their legislative powers were being usurped by the president, don't you think there would have been howls of anger coming from the House over this? Remember, this was put into effect in December of 2018...well over a year ago. Congress has had plenty of time to protest how this was done or even introduce legislation to nullify the new regulation. It shouldn't be hard to guess why they didn't.

Originally Posted by GaryS

It stands...for now. Whether or not it is legal has yet to be determined. There are, as noted, other challenges making their way through the courts.

Yes, it stands for now. And that's the bottom line far as I'm concerned. Now. Speculation about whether it's legal or not, or hinting about other cases which may or may not come before the Supreme Court x-number of years from now is just that...speculation.

Speculation is nice. It's one of the things that sets us apart from other species. It's part of being able to imagine things. But speculation about this has absolutely no effect on the present. Zero.

[rwsmith]

... and even agree with the reasoning. What's next on the list? I don't understand why my SKS is part of the 'Assault Weapons Ban'. A semi auto with a 10 round internal magazine.

[stansdds]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

If Congress (especially the present Congress) thought their legislative powers were being usurped by the president, don't you think there would have been howls of anger coming from the House over this? Remember, this was put into effect in December of 2018...well over a year ago. Congress has had plenty of time to protest how this was done or even introduce legislation to nullify the new regulation. It shouldn't be hard to guess why they didn't.

Honestly, I doubt that a great number of those who have been elected to the current House of Representatives has ever read the constitution from beginning to end, so I doubt they understand their powers, the executive powers, the legislative powers, and the limits and checks thereon.

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by stansdds

Honestly, I doubt that a great number of those who have been elected to the current House of Representatives has ever read the constitution from beginning to end, so I doubt they understand their powers, the executive powers, the legislative powers, and the limits and checks thereon.

Well, that's your opinion, and it may or may not be true. Not for me to say.

Insult their intelligence all you wish, but they're still the ones sitting in the halls of Congress making laws. And just how did they get there? They're there because voters just like you put them there. Ditto for those sitting in the Virginia legislature. That's a fact, not an opinion. They didn't just materialize out of thin air, a bunch of people elected them.

For better or worse, voters nationwide have reaped what they sowed.

[rednichols]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

Well, that's your opinion, and it may or may not be true. Not for me to say.

Insult their intelligence all you wish, but they're still the ones sitting in the halls of Congress making laws. And just how did they get there? They're there because voters just like you put them there. Ditto for those sitting in the Virginia legislature. That's a fact, not an opinion. They didn't just materialize out of thin air, a bunch of people elected them.

For better or worse, voters nationwide have reaped what they sowed.

I think your missives are always well thought-out and expressed equally well. In this case I'll say that its unlikely that anyone on this forum voted for a certain, high profile member of the House from New York state and such members quite literally make the laws. Certainly not I; I vote in CA. Yup plenty of no-hopers in my home state but I didn't vote for 'em :-).

[stansdds]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

Well, that's your opinion, and it may or may not be true. Not for me to say.

Insult their intelligence all you wish, but they're still the ones sitting in the halls of Congress making laws. And just how did they get there? They're there because voters just like you put them there. Ditto for those sitting in the Virginia legislature. That's a fact, not an opinion. They didn't just materialize out of thin air, a bunch of people elected them.

For better or worse, voters nationwide have reaped what they sowed.

Voters like me did not vote for these people. Voters who moved here from northeast states (and I know a number of them, so I know that many have moved here either for job or to retire to a lower cost of living) and voters who are the "never Trump" crowd surely voted for this mess. Sadly, too many Republicans stayed away from the polls, either out of apathy, or because the Virginia GOP did not bother to contest races (a huge problem in Virginia), or perhaps they did not care for Trump. But is was not voters just like me.

[yellolab]

In a vacuum, I support the bump stock ban.....however we are know it's just another step down the dark path.

[The_Truth]

Originally Posted by rednichols

The ban stands: good decision. Bump stocks: bad decision (Las Vegas is on the line). What's wrong? The bump stocks should not have been approved in the first place, nor invented and sold in the first place. "Sometimes illegal, always wrong" comes to mind. This has been my position since I first discovered they existed from news of the LV massacre.

Some people cut the string hanging from their knit sweater, others are content to keep trying to pull it I suppose.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by stansdds

Honestly, I doubt that a great number of those who have been elected to the current House of Representatives has ever read the constitution from beginning to end, so I doubt they understand their powers, the executive powers, the legislative powers, and the limits and checks thereon.

They, and many others not in gov’t including “gun owners”, may have read the Constitution but don’t abide by it in word or deed.

[rednichols]

Originally Posted by The_Truth

Some people cut the string hanging from their knit sweater, others are content to keep trying to pull it I suppose.

And I suppose that this comment is worth addressing, neverthless that it was posed as a throwaway.

Some historical context: I've been officially a part of the U.S. gun industry since 1970. That's NSGA show then the appearance of the SHOT show; plus NRA show; plus police and military shows. While I was active which was 1970 to 2000 there was a self-regulating nature to the industry. As an example I give my friends at what was called Assault Systems, so-called because they made/make carrying cases for assault rifles from ballistic nylon.

The trade shows banned the use of the word 'assault' or 'combat' outright in the 1980s and they became Shooting Systems so that they could continue to display their wares at SHOT and NRA. Today their name is different still.

So to catch you up, in 2015 I took my new wife to SHOT to explore opportunities for my gunleather range, because prior I was a gunleather designer but had not been a maker under my own name. I'll be honest: I was offended by what I saw. Suddenly silencers are legal? Assault rifles proliferated. But I didn't know about bump stocks there; I'd have had a few words to say to the exhibitor if I had.

Then I return from Vegas in 2015 and in 2017 I find out from the news of the massacre there about bump stocks. Whose stupid idea was this, to allow these to be in trade shows and sold to the public when even the words 'assault' and 'combat' were prohibited there?

We don't want to be regulated by outsiders, so many a professional association regulates itself to prevent that. I'm offended that the industry, and its consumers, ever tolerated bump stocks. And I say that as a professional in the gun industry who's been shooting since 1963 then joined NRA in '67 to shoot .22 rifle and was in PPC in 1968-70; and at the formation of IPSC in 1976 and helped found the Bianchi Cup tournament in 1979 that still operates today (I visited in 2010).

I'm don't reckon I'll ever stop 'picking at' this particular thread; haven't forgiven my country or my countrymen for going so far down that particular slipper slope. Have some self control.

[Targets Guy]

Non issue for me. I think they are stupid and would never buy or use one. My M-1 and M-1 Carbine work just fine for me.

[bushmaster1313]

Problem for me as a lawyer is that the BATFE interpreted the statute to allow bumpstocks the first time it considered the applicability of the NFA machine gun statute -- and the opposite way the second time it considered the same statute.

How is a citizen supposed to know what a statute means when the responsible government agency reverses its own interpretation.

[squidsix]

Wow. Many of you are people who’s opinions I respect, albeit differ with.
The supreme court bump stock piece is interesting, to me. I am always interested in what makes their minds up regarding taking a case or not.
I am also firmly in the camp of “the people should be as well or better armed than their government.”
Yes, I mean artillery, tanks, jets, full autos...

[pantannojack]

and that ought to eliminate half of the readers, If you pull the trigger once and the magazine empties as cycled per design, you are full auto. You can split hairs with a razor blade in the mirror if you want. I don't need to and I ain't gonna cry about it. Did Napoleon say: { he who has saved a nation has broken no law }? Pilot Major Blackthorn said: { A subject has not committed treason against his lord, if he wins. } Well if you are SO Sensitive about your RIGHTS and you are SO Threatened, then prove it by YOUR sacrifice, not MINE. I will not follow, I will not lead, nor will I get out of the way of a Crack Pot over NOTHING SERIOUS. WA, WA, Wa.

[WR Moore]

Originally Posted by rednichols

.... While I was active which was 1970 to 2000 there was a self-regulating nature to the industry. .........

The trade shows banned the use of the word 'assault' or 'combat' outright in the 1980s ......

So to catch you up, in 2015 I took my new wife to SHOT ..... I'll be honest: I was offended by what I saw. Suddenly silencers are legal? Assault rifles proliferated. But I didn't know about bump stocks there; I'd have had a few words to say to the exhibitor if I had.

We don't want to be regulated by outsiders, so many a professional association regulates itself to prevent that. I'm offended that the industry, and its consumers, ever tolerated bump stocks. And I say that as a professional in the gun industry who's been shooting since 1963 then joined NRA in '67 to shoot .22 rifle and was in PPC in 1968-70; and at the formation of IPSC in 1976 and helped found the Bianchi Cup tournament in 1979 that still operates today (I visited in 2010).

I'm don't reckon I'll ever stop 'picking at' this particular thread; haven't forgiven my country or my countrymen for going so far down that particular slipper slope. Have some self control.

I agree with quite a bit of what you said about self regulation. During my professional career, we generally had to visit restricted entry exhibitions to see certain products germane to our mission.

However, you definitely did NOT see masses of actual assault rifles. You've bought into the deceptive labeling of a legitimate product. This is similar to believing that if you slapped sponsor decals on the family ride, you'd have a race car.

BTW, silencers have always been legal, just highly regulated. In many countries they're regarded in the same way as automotive mufflers and can be purchased pretty much in the same manner.

[Fastbolt]

Originally Posted by WR Moore

I agree with quite a bit of what you said about self regulation. During my professional career, we generally had to visit restricted entry exhibitions to see certain products germane to our mission.

However, you definitely did NOT see masses of actual assault rifles. You've bought into the deceptive labeling of a legitimate product. This is similar to believing that if you slapped sponsor decals on the family ride, you'd have a race car.

BTW, silencers have always been legal, just highly regulated. In many countries they're regarded in the same way as automotive mufflers and can be purchased pretty much in the same manner.

Part of the problem is who uses which definition of some of the terms, like "assault rifle" or "assault weapon". If the federal legislative branch or a particular state legislates the definition, then that becomes the law of the land until such time as the law is repealed, declared unconstitutional, "sunsets" or is changed.

I remember when my own state of residence (CA) was just beginning to talk about creating the first assault weapon law. I saw what appeared to be the writing on the wall, and along with some of the other guys (LE), decided to order an AR.

Now, up until that time I had no interest in owning an AR. I got my fill of shooting them at work, but when some politicians started talking about passing a law to restrict ownership, my younger self took a bit of umbrage and decided it was time to buy one.

I dutifully registered it with the state under the then new assault weapon law when the law was enacted and registration was required. Still have it, but I haven't shot it in several years. (Still had ample opportunity to shoot agency weapons as part of my responsibility of being a rifle instructor and armorer. )

In recent years I rather regret not having taking the opportunity several years ago to have turned mine into a couple of nice lever rifles/carbines.

[Sgt911]

My crackehead neighbor had one, now he doesn't, and I am glad he doesn't, but did not want it this way.

[Jon651]

Originally Posted by stansdds

Voters like me did not vote for these people. Voters who moved here from northeast states (and I know a number of them, so I know that many have moved here either for job or to retire to a lower cost of living) and voters who are the "never Trump" crowd surely voted for this mess. Sadly, too many Republicans stayed away from the polls, either out of apathy, or because the Virginia GOP did not bother to contest races (a huge problem in Virginia), or perhaps they did not care for Trump. But is was not voters just like me.

Just keep firmly in mind that it was President Trump who enacted the ban on bump stocks, it's his BATF that is enforcing it, and his Justice Department that is defending the decision in the courts. You can rail about the "Never Trumpers" all you want, but this is his baby.

[Islanderflyer]

The problem I see with the bump stock ban is the way the regulation was interpreted to define a bump stock as a machine gun. Bump fire is easily done with just your finger and holding the firearm correctly. So... what happens when the next president figures that out? Will all semi autos be redefined as machine guns? The support of the bump stock ban by so many gun owners baffles me. What part of "shall not be infringed " do they not understand?

[oberon]

Originally Posted by rednichols

Yes it is :-). Anyone who thought a bump stock was a good idea because it 'cleverly' got around a legitimate law that regulated automatic firing (and equally 'cleverly' ignored the physics that need an open bolt to cool the barrel -- which is why the Vegas shooter had so many jammed rifles at the scene) instead had a bad idea. Bad bad bad bad and hundreds of the dead and the wounded to prove it. Three cheers for the President and for the Supreme Court.

Oh. I get it now.
It is the bumpstock.
Not the screwball who committed the crime.
Nope. Not him. It was the plastic thing that did it.

[johngalt]

The bumpstock controversy illustrates a fundamental big-picture problem - the unconstitutional 4th branch of government, the regulatory bureaucracies.

The Constitution expressly reserves the law making power to the legislature. But we have bureaucracies creating law out of thin air. Except they call them regulations rather than laws.

However, I can be arrested, convicted of a crime, fined, imprisoned, or even shot if I resist, for disobeying a 'regulation' that was never voted for by my elected representatives nor signed into law by the president.

The lawyers here probably know the legal principle I am trying to describe, but there used to be a time where citizens were deemed to have the right to know exactly, with no ambiguity, what was illegal. Everything is legal unless specifically and unambiguously made illegal by our elected representatives in the legislature by passing laws in the Constitutionally proscribed manner.

It was a perfectly valid defense for a citizen, arrested for violating a vaguely written law, to claim the law was unjust. And judges upheld that defense.

Now we have unelected bureaucrats creating laws, oops I mean regulations, redefining poorly written laws, complete with quite onerous criminal penalties, and they themselves are often poorly and vaguely written.

[ladder13]

Poorly written by design.

[Suburbanite]

Originally Posted by rednichols

Some historical context: I've been officially a part of the U.S. gun industry since 1970. That's NSGA show then the appearance of the SHOT show; plus NRA show; plus police and military shows. While I was active which was 1970 to 2000 there was a self-regulating nature to the industry. As an example I give my friends at what was called Assault Systems, so-called because they made/make carrying cases for assault rifles from ballistic nylon.

The trade shows banned the use of the word 'assault' or 'combat' outright in the 1980s and they became Shooting Systems so that they could continue to display their wares at SHOT and NRA. Today their name is different still.

So should Smith & Wesson or the collectors of their fine products refrain from referring to the Model 15, 18 and 19 by their original model names?

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by ladder13

Poorly written by design.

I agree. The laws are written such that prosecutors can twist any meaning they want out them, to invent crimes so they can target which ever person group has drawn unfavorable attention.

[vipermd]

Originally Posted by rednichols

Yes it is :-). Anyone who thought a bump stock was a good idea because it 'cleverly' got around a legitimate law that regulated automatic firing (and equally 'cleverly' ignored the physics that need an open bolt to cool the barrel -- which is why the Vegas shooter had so many jammed rifles at the scene) instead had a bad idea. Bad bad bad bad and hundreds of the dead and the wounded to prove it. Three cheers for the President and for the Supreme Court.

Bump stocks were and are a good idea. Vegas- he did not use a "bump Stock" listen to the video, time it and compare it to belt fed firearms. Have you wondered why the FBI spent 2-3 weeks trying to locate every projectile? It was never proved that he used a bump stock, or that he even did the firing, unless you believe everything the FBI says. No one has committed a crime with a bump stock, and as stated earlier, it is not a federal law, as stated by Watchdog it is a revised rule. SCOTUS needs to hear the cases, as Bushmaster1313 stated BATF decided to change their review of the same statute. As for " bump firing" anyone can go on you tube to see how to do it with a belt loop and a semiauto. Since down under you are not allowed to own semi autos, do you think they should ban all firearms, which would stop all "crime" Be Safe,

[Oracle]

I don't have any motivation or desire to buy a bump stock. I prefer to challenge myself with putting all the rounds inside a canning jar ring size circle and increase the distance.

I will not be judgmental on other gun owners, I will support them 100%. If we let ourselves to be split into groups we will pay the price as a whole.

A huge granite boulder can be reduced to drive way stones by chipping off a little piece at a time.

[Ματθιας]

Wasn't a 14" length of shoestring with loops at both ends considered a machine gun and then it wasn't?

For ~$400 one can get binary trigger and do everything the bumpstock does.

[stansdds]

All the laws in the world will not stop criminal activity and that is a fact that the politicos refuse to accept.

[LCC]

There is zero legitimate need among law biding citizens for a work around to convert civilian semi-automatic into quasi- full automatics, we've seen what they can do in the hands of the mentally ill.
And insisting that a bump stock ban is part of the 'slippery slope' is just a false canard, there is a wide gulf of reason between a citizens right to bear arms and the unregulated right to own an automatic weapon.

[Muss Muggins]

Well, this is where we can agree to disagree. I've seen what can happen with a motor vehicle, a big sword, or a rock in the hands of the mentally ill, and it's not pretty. When we start talking about "need" in association with a right, then it fails to remain a right. "Because I want to" is a legitimate reason . . .

Originally Posted by LCC

There is zero legitimate need among law biding citizens for a work around to convert civilian semi-automatic into quasi- full automatics, we've seen what they can do in the hands of the mentally ill.
And insisting that a bump stock ban is part of the 'slippery slope' is just a false canard, there is a wide gulf of reason between a citizens right to bear arms and the unregulated right to own an automatic weapon.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

Well, this is where we can agree to disagree. I've seen what can happen with a motor vehicle, a big sword, or a rock in the hands of the mentally ill, and it's not pretty. When we start talking about "need" in association with a right, then it fails to remain a right. "Because I want to" is a legitimate reason . . .

Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness

To me, that sums up the "Because I want to" defense. If I haven't done anything wrong, why can't I? Innocent, until proven guilty.

[ggibson511960]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Problem for me as a lawyer is that the BATFE interpreted the statute to allow bumpstocks the first time it considered the applicability of the NFA machine gun statute -- and the opposite way the second time it considered the same statute.

How is a citizen supposed to know what a statute means when the responsible government agency reverses its own interpretation.

Does the government not immunize itself from intellectual responsibility? There is no accountability in the civil bureaucracy. The IRS issues Private Letter Opinions on serious tax matters, but is not bound to abide by them. Our fourth branch of government needs some serious rule making to check the runaway, unaccountable, elitist posture it now takes.

[gdogs]

The question IMHO isn't whether or not we should have bumpstocks, but whether the BATFE has the authority to redefine what a "machine gun" is. This is a term codified in law with a specific definition. Can an agency of the government simply decide that it can be something else? There is no question that a bumpstock is not a "machine gun".

[Racer X]

BATFE is part of the Executive Branch. They don't really have the power to make laws. The execute the laws, in effect. The Legislative Branch makes the laws, and the Judicial Branch interprets and decides how the laws are applied and carried out.

Seems to me everyone in DC needs to go back to Freshman Civics/US Governmenmt class in high school.

[Muss Muggins]

I think we're pretty far outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment Forum's purpose . . .

[ladder13]

Don’t want to buy one, don’t need one, fine. Let us who support the 2A as written have them.