President Trump’s Stealth Bump Stock Ban Is Illegal And Ignorant

The Federalost ^ | 12/07/18 | Matthew Larosiere

[Simon Green]

President Trump made up his mind some time ago to ban bump stocks, the woefully ineffective firearm accessory regrettably used in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Recently, though, reports from CNN and the New York Times indicate that the Trump administration is poised to implement a ban on these devices in the coming days. There are two major issues with this: they can’t legally do it, and it’s dumb.

Still, you may remember the media storm around bump stocks last year. Deserved or not, a proposition to ban bump stocks seemed to have bipartisan support, but Congress couldn’t agree on a way to ban or regulate the devices, so the momentum petered out.

Perhaps in search of mythical bipartisanship points, Trump ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to craft a new administrative rule banning the devices. This might seem odd to anyone who has managed to stay awake through a single civics class or a third of an episode of “Schoolhouse Rock.” That’s because this attempt to bypass the legislature is completely out of line with the law.

Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns

For better or for worse, the DOJ was given the authority to regulate machine guns with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968. These laws specifically define a “machine gun,” and over the last 10 years several administrations have reviewed bump stocks and repeatedly determined that they do not fall in that category.

But, when faced with an opportunity for political expediency in the wake of the Vegas shooting, President Trump basically demanded the DOJ pretend as if bump stocks—a shaped piece of plastic—somehow now fall within the legal definition of “machine gun.” This is absurd.

Imagine there were a law giving the DOJ the authority to regulate blue cars, and that for decades the DOJ agreed with the reasonable proposition that green cars were not included in the definition of “blue cars,” and thus could not regulate them. Then imagine that a tragedy involving a green car occurs, and the DOJ is suddenly of the opinion that green is actually a shade of blue.

That is exactly what is happening here. Under federal law, a “machine gun” is a device “which shoots … automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger.” A bump stock, on the other hand, functions with repeated actuations of a trigger.

If the government really wants to regulate bump stocks (which they shouldn’t), they need to do it by passing a new law, not by assigning new meaning to an old one. This whole point should be moot, though, because of the fact that bump stocks are not actually uniquely dangerous compared to other guns. Hollywood and video games have convinced the American public that the faster people can fire, the more deadly they can be. Reality, though, is a bit more nuanced.

How Do Bump Stocks Actually Work?

A gun’s usable rate of fire is limited by its recoil. Unlike a truck, bomb, or knife, when a firearm is discharged, it deviates from its course and needs to be re-aimed before it can fire again effectively. A gun that fires 10,000 rounds per minute is no more useful than a regular rifle if the gun is pointing in the air after the first shot. This is why not even our military regularly uses fully automatic “machine gun” fire in standard rifles—they’re just not nearly as deadly or effective as they sound.

In reality, there is no gun that is more or less safe when misused against innocent people. The American people think it’s reasonable to ban something like a bump stock because it is “like a machine gun” only because of a fundamentally flawed conception of how firearms actually work.

We need to remember that any time we want to ban something, it comes at a tremendous cost. President Trump is wasting not only time and sidestepping the law with this proposal, he is betraying his promise to protect gun rights—with no benefit to public safety.

[Red in Blue PA]

So feelings now override facts.

Are you sure you are on the right website?

[trebb]

I'm with you - and one of the arguments on the story supports us:

A gun’s usable rate of fire is limited by its recoil. Unlike a truck, bomb, or knife, when a firearm is discharged, it deviates from its course and needs to be re-aimed before it can fire again effectively. A gun that fires 10,000 rounds per minute is no more useful than a regular rifle if the gun is pointing in the air after the first shot. This is why not even our military regularly uses fully automatic “machine gun” fire in standard rifles—they’re just not nearly as deadly or effective as they sound. In reality, there is no gun that is more or less safe when misused against innocent people. The American people think it’s reasonable to ban something like a bump stock because it is “like a machine gun” only because of a fundamentally flawed conception of how firearms actually work.

Pretty much says they are useless as any sort of regular weapon and just throw a lot of ammo out there.....BUT, the second part about no gun being safer/more dangerous is not well thought out....about the only place they are useful against actual targets are places where a lot of targets are penned in a finite area - like what happened in Vegas.

Might as well try to argue that we should all have unfettered access to Claymores.....they do the same thing as a bumpstocked weapon - indiscriminately spray chunks of metal over an area....only they have less range.

[antidemoncrat]

I get the feeling from all the negative feedback I got on this subject I am completely wrong about the Second Amendment. If it is legal to possess hardware that makes a semi-automatic weapon fully automatic, and by the way, armor piercing ammo why shouldn’t I be able to purchase a few Stinger missiles in case someone tries to bomb my house, or maybe a Javelin missile in case someone tries to attack my house in a tank. Please explain to me how prohibiting ownership of fully automatic weapons restricts the Second Amendment.

[antidemoncrat]

Actually the demoncrat part of that title usually refers to Democrats but there are a lot of Republicans that it also refers to. If you say I think like a liberal, let me hit you with this. I’m totally against constitutional carry if it means you can conceal carry without proper training and permit. I’ve had a conceal carry license for about 15 years and have no problem with periodically having to go through a renewal process to learn new laws. I’ll guarantee you there are folks out there that shhouldn’t be allowed that privilege.

[realcleanguy]

Sorry for your fascination with automatic fire. It’s people like you that get others killed in a firefight.

[suthener]

“Actually the demoncrat part of that title usually refers to Democrats but there are a lot of Republicans that it also refers to. If you say I think like a liberal, let me hit you with this. I’m totally against constitutional carry if it means you can conceal carry without proper training and permit. I’ve had a conceal carry license for about 15 years and have no problem with periodically having to go through a renewal process to learn new laws. I’ll guarantee you there are folks out there that shhouldn’t be allowed that privilege.”

Wow. I don’t even know what to say about that. What other rights do you not have a problem with government restricting?

[antidemoncrat]

I actually am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment but am against military grade weapons in the hands of civilians. An example of the worst of the failures is Las Vegas.

“Perpetrator Stephen Paddock, 64, of Mesquite, Nevada, fired more than 1,100 rounds from his suite on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay hotel, killing 58 people and leaving 851 injured”

[fireman15]

I'm with you - and one of the arguments on the story supports us:

I have been round and round on this subject previously on other threads. When "bump stocks" are banned for safety reasons at a gun club that requires everyone to be an NRA member before joining... then it seems to me that this is not as much of a constitutional issue as it is a consumer safety issue.

My wife and I live on a small airport. When we fly our plane overhead a few thousand feet up, unless it is a very quiet place, no one even notices. But there are a couple planes based here that are extremely loud. They generate nearly all of the noise complaints and cause a great deal of ill will from the surrounding community. Because of a tiny minority the entire airport's future is in jeopardy. I would prefer that the loud planes went to another facility where they would not bother people so much.

These “bump stocks” serve no constructive or legitimate purpose other than to give yahoos their jollies while they pretend that they are firing an automatic weapon. This disturbs people and causes them to vote for more gun control. We were trying to enjoy ourselves in a National Forest not too long ago and a group was using “bump stocks” in an undesignated area without proper backstops. It was creating a dangerous situation for everyone in the area. It is almost always a few reckless and irresponsible people who are often the root cause of over reaching government regulation.

[suthener]

“Perpetrator Stephen Paddock, 64, of Mesquite, Nevada, fired more than 1,100 rounds from his suite on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay hotel, killing 58 people and leaving 851 injured”

Yeah, I keep up with the news pretty much. What’s your point?

[antidemoncrat]

“killing 58 people and leaving 851 injured”

Did you miss it?

[suthener]

I don’t know what your point is and, frankly, I’m bored with you.

[antidemoncrat]

Good. Goodbye