Subscription Status

Supporting Member : No
Pro Supp. Member : No

Join & Become a Member
Supporting Memberships

Our Local Sponsors


Forum Links

CTGUNTALK.COM Forum Links
  1. CT AWB / LCM FAQ
  2. CT Shooting Range Info
  3. CT Gun Shops


Like & Follow us on :

Author Topic: Bump Stock Rule Puts Constitution In The Crosshairs  (Read 274 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online sbhaven

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Highly Active Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 19198
  • Thanked: 200 times
  • Keep the 2nd Amendment Alive.
  • Referrals: 2
Bump Stock Rule Puts Constitution In The Crosshairs
« on: March 07, 2019, 09:14:05 PM »

Bump Stock Rule Puts Constitution In The Crosshairs
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently warned Republicans that if a GOP president can declare a national emergency over a wall on the southern border, the next Democrat president could declare one over gun violence. Her threat envisioned future gun control actions without Congress. But that’s already happening—and it has made a shambles of constitutional lawmaking.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued the Bump Stock Type Devices Final Rule late last year. This criminal regulation retroactively bans ownership of bump stocks, an accessory that helps shooters fire semi-automatic weapons more quickly by bumping the trigger with their finger when the gun recoils.

When the 90-day compliance window closes on March 26, lawful purchasers of some 520,000 bump stocks must have either surrendered their devices or destroyed them. Absent judicial relief, this regulation will convert all remaining owners of bump stocks into felons without action by Congress.

But the various lawsuits pending against the rule are not about guns or gun rights. Rather, these suits ask whether DOJ may create new criminal laws without involving Congress. The Constitution’s answer is a firm no. New criminal laws must clear the twin constitutional hurdles of “bicameralism” (passage by both houses of Congress) and “presentment” (Presidential signature or veto override).

Even a staunch gun control advocate like Senator Dianne Feinstein has recognized that Congress must be the one to act here: “Until March 2018, ATF maintained that bump stocks could not be banned through administrative action. Legislation is necessary to ensure a ban is implemented and regulations are not tied up in court.” Likewise, the Obama Administration faced tremendous pressure from allies to ban bump stocks via regulation but decided that it could not lawfully do so unilaterally. A pen and a phone would not suffice for this.

Nevertheless, current policymakers have defined two allegedly ambiguous terms in the 1934 National Firearms Act in order to ban bump stocks. Despite 80+ years of clarity and dozens of federal cases deeming the statute unambiguous, DOJ is trying to create a loophole in the definition of “machinegun” to fit bump stocks into it. Usually it’s criminal defendants who try such stunts to exempt their machineguns from the ban. This time it’s DOJ claiming ambiguity—and eroding respect for the rule of law.

Worse yet, in this week’s case out of the federal district court in D.C., the judge invoked the Chevron doctrine in deferring to DOJ’s definition of the terms “single function of the trigger” and “automatically.” DOJ’s new definitions are awkward at best, but Chevron poses the more nettlesome problem. This embarrassing precedent tells federal judges to defer to the executive branch’s statutory interpretation whenever the judge decides that a statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. There is not room here for a complete takedown of Chevron, so suffice it to say that the D.C. plaintiffs did not enjoy due process of law when their judge deferred to the other party in the case rather than providing her independent judgment.

Besides which, the Chevron doctrine should not even come into play where a criminal statute is concerned. The Rule of Lenity dictates construing ambiguity in a criminal statute in favor of defendants. And make no mistake; there will be defendants. DOJ has conceded in court that it will use these same definitions to go after any bump stock owners who hold onto their devices.

Therein lies a future injustice. It is practically certain that some number of lawful purchasers will not get the word that bump stocks were banned. They will show up at a gun range to fire one, be seen there by an ATF agent or other law enforcement official and get arrested. The penalty is up to 10 years in prison and a permanent ban on gun ownership. These innocent owners will have no reason to have anticipated a ban—at least not a retroactive one. When Congress banned machineguns themselves in 1986, it did not do so retroactively.

This fact raises two further questions. First, how can a statute that did not ban anything retroactively later be construed to authorize banning bump stocks retroactively? It cannot, at least not when interpreted reasonably. Perhaps the greatest indignity to the Constitution in these cases is the idea that a statute that quite deliberately did not ban machineguns retroactively can be rewritten later by a federal agency to ban bump stocks retroactively. DOJ—and the D.C. district court—rely on the fiction that the statute is ambiguous when it is just silent.

Second, were Congress to ban bump stocks, would it do so retroactively and with the same penalty structure as owning an actual machinegun? History says no, especially since Congress has tried and failed to ban bump stocks several times—and those bills were rarely retroactive.

But DOJ’s loopholing requires it to use the same penalty structure because DOJ knows that courts will not let it get away with altering the length of sentences. DOJ often assures that prosecutorial discretion will prevent injustice. Somehow trust in that is hard to muster when the Department is already mangling the Constitution to rewrite the statute.

Congress is generally not willing to turn law-abiding citizens into felons, because Congress has to face voters. Administrative agencies like ATF and DOJ face no voters and show no such qualms. Bump stock owners risk prison as a result. Everyone else risks the terrifying consequences of allowing DOJ to write criminal laws without Congress. After all, if DOJ can create the bump stock rule, what stops it from bypassing Congress to create criminal laws on other subjects?

Barrels of ink have been spilled criticizing the administration’s national emergency declaration to transfer some funds for building a wall on the southern border. The bump stock ban sets a far worse precedent, yet comparatively little alarm has been raised. No matter one’s feelings about gun control policy, everyone should oppose rapid-fire destruction of constitutional lawmaking. Our liberty is in jeopardy.


Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
- Ayn Rand

Online BerettaBoy213

  • Forum Contributor Pro
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Highly Active Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jul 2016
  • Posts: 1534
  • Thanked: 31 times
  • revolverholic
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bump Stock Rule Puts Constitution In The Crosshairs
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2019, 10:09:16 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Barrels of ink have been spilled criticizing the administration’s national emergency declaration to transfer some funds for building a wall on the southern border. The bump stock ban sets a far worse precedent, yet comparatively little alarm has been raised. No matter one’s feelings about gun control policy, everyone should oppose rapid-fire destruction of constitutional lawmaking. Our liberty is in jeopardy.

the former hurts D's, the later hurt's R's, thus the coverage disparity.

I suspect Chevron is going down sooner rather than later. 8)

Online Mustang

  • Forum Contributor
  • Trade Count: (+45)
  • Highly Active Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 5521
  • Thanked: 23 times
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Bump Stock Rule Puts Constitution In The Crosshairs
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2019, 06:39:01 AM »
Big thing is s bump stock was not used in the Nevada shooting. This is what is being kept quiet under this farce excuse to ban bump stocks.
"Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power, have in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny..." - T.Jefferson

Online edgephoto

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 2239
  • Thanked: 34 times
  • Guns don't kill people. People kill people...
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Bump Stock Rule Puts Constitution In The Crosshairs
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2019, 09:38:29 AM »
If the challenges are unsuccessful this will open the door for interpretation that all semi autos are illegal.  It also will allow government agencies to create laws with going to Congress.

We are going down a very slippery slope. Wether you like or dislike bump stocks this is more than a device being banned. It is the test case for agencies making there own rules without Congress. Fudds need to come out of there coma and fight this.

I don't care one way or the other about bump stocks but I have given money to a lawyer who I know that is actually fighting for out rights all over the country. LaRue, like him or not, has been very active in supporting him too.

Offline richief

  • Trade Count: (+20)
  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Posts: 2509
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Dubbed "Fringe O Fringe" by Holier than thou D.M.
  • Referrals: 2
    • youtube
Re: Bump Stock Rule Puts Constitution In The Crosshairs
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2019, 12:04:42 AM »
What about the fact that a once lawfull ownership of a property is now a crimminal act if you don’t forfeit said property, and without any compensation?
 There is more holes in the constitution than a swiss cheese with this beuracratic bastardizing of law.
 It won’t stand.
“Statesman, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.'
John Adams

Online Mustang

  • Forum Contributor
  • Trade Count: (+45)
  • Highly Active Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 5521
  • Thanked: 23 times
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Bump Stock Rule Puts Constitution In The Crosshairs
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2019, 12:16:18 AM »
Sell it before the proposed ban. Just look n see what Connecticut so said was Constitutional. So many ways r our laws un Constitutional n illegal, yet the Connecticut judge still let them stand.
"Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power, have in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny..." - T.Jefferson

Online BerettaBoy213

  • Forum Contributor Pro
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Highly Active Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jul 2016
  • Posts: 1534
  • Thanked: 31 times
  • revolverholic
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bump Stock Rule Puts Constitution In The Crosshairs
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2019, 11:43:19 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sell it before the proposed ban.

who do you sell it to exactly? and if you can find a buyer, how much do you expect to get? $0.01 or $0.02? :dunno:
« Last Edit: March 09, 2019, 11:43:49 PM by BerettaBoy213 »

Online Mustang

  • Forum Contributor
  • Trade Count: (+45)
  • Highly Active Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 5521
  • Thanked: 23 times
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Bump Stock Rule Puts Constitution In The Crosshairs
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2019, 12:02:47 AM »
Gov does not care as long as you don't have it. Its their way of saying you have s way to be compensated before the date. Right now I've seen bump stocks going for 50 dollars opening buds to 500 dollars. We saw it here in Connecticut before the ban though everything round the country skyrocketed. There was no compensation, it was either destroy it, give it to police, or sell it.
"Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power, have in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny..." - T.Jefferson