> Dec 10 - Dec 26
Now there’s a serious error for us!
Do better.
OK.
However, in order to avail itself of the congressional authority to regulate bump stocks, DOJ has found it necessary to call bump stocks machine guns, which are firearms, thus opening the door to Second Amendment challenges.
Unless Dr. Gonzales believes that he can find a court that would nullify the entire NFA based on Second Amendment protections, his argument above is moot.
One could also argue that a bump stock is not a machine gun. This is inherently true, of course, as a bump stock could not, by itself, fire a bullet. If a bump stock is not a machine gun, then DOJ’s reliance on 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 & 479.11 would get thrown out as nonsensical. Frankly speaking, such would be the honest assessment and the most appropriate outcome of a true evaluation of the language of the governing statutes.
Completely ignoring 26 U.S. Code § 5845, where 'machinegun' is defined as "any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.
The federal government is one of enumerated powers. If a power employed by Congress in passing a law is not contained in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; it cannot possess the authority to enact it, and there is no provision in the Constitution allowing Congress to ban bump stocks. Even the interstate commerce clause would not allow Congress to ban it.
Dr. Gonzales makes the above claim, yet even admits his error with the remark "[s]adly, though, the train allowing Congress to intrude in such intrastate activities has long since left the station and delivering such an argument before a federal magistrate would be met with nothing other than hostility." Making his argument the quintessential Straw Man.