By Bob Walsh
The
Supreme Court of the United States is scheduled to hear the Garland v.
Cargill case today. The basic question is whether or not BATFE can
regulate the bump stock itself as a fully-automatic firearm, which it
demonstrably is NOT. A bump stock is a mechanical device that uses the
recoil of the firearm to cycle the trigger very quickly. The gun still
only fires one shot pull trigger pull (the operational description of a
semi-automatic firearm) but allows that to happen really, really fast.
This became an issue after the mass shooting in Vegas wherein about 60
people were killed and hundreds were injured, by a nutter in a high-rise
hotel room with an AR fitted with a bump stock, shooting into a large
crowd.
Most people who
believe the law means what it actually says rather than what people WANT
it to say believe that this was a clear overreach by BATFE. Just
because something may (or may not) be sound public policy that does not
give every regulatory agency in the country to enact that policy absent
clear law permitting them to do so.
The questioning by the judges will give court watchers a pretty good idea of what direction the case is probably headed for.
EDITOR'S NOTE: As a pro-gunner I do not see where bump stocks are protected by the Second Amendment. If someone wants a machine gun, or has to have one, let them apply for a license to own one.
1 comment:
You can't own a Bump Stock but you can buy a Flame Thrower.
Post a Comment