MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Justice Department Announces Bump Stock Ban

But does it have the legal right to do it?

Pedro Portal/TNS/NewscomPedro Portal/TNS/NewscomThe Trump administration announced this weekend that it will be banning bump stocks, a modification that increases a semiautomatic rifle's rate of fire.

"President Trump is absolutely committed to ensuring the safety and security of every American and he has directed us to propose a regulation addressing bump stocks," said Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a press release announcing the move. The Justice Department, he continued, had submitted draft rules declaring "that the National Firearms and Gun Control Act defines 'machinegun' to include bump stock type devices."

Given that federal law prohibits private individuals from possessing machine guns that were acquired after 1986, this would effectively ban anyone from owning the more recently invented bump stocks.

Bump stocks have been in the sights of lawmakers of both parties since a deadly shooting in Las Vegas last October, when 58 people were killed and hundreds more wounded at a country music concert. Twelve of the shooter's rifles had been modified with bump stocks.

Within days of that shooting, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) promised legislation banning the device. Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) and Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) introduced a bump stock ban a week later. Other Republican lawmakers, from House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said they would be OK with some sort of ban. The NRA likewise endorsed "additional regulations" on the product.

States too have targeted bump stocks in in recent months, with Washington, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Florida passing bans. Similar laws are working their way through the legislatures in Maryland and Illinois.

Following the Parkland shooting, Donald Trump also endorsed a federal ban, going as far as to personally direct Sessions in a press conference to implement new regulations as soon as possible.

One problem: Adding bump stocks to the definition of machine guns in existing federal law is legally dubious, as Reason's Jacob Sullum has noted.

According to statute, a machine gun is "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." But bump stocks fire just one shot per trigger function. Unlike a standard rifle stock, which is fixed to the barrel, a bump stock lets the barrel slide back and forth along the stock when firing, continuously "bumping" against the shooters trigger finger, increasing the rate of fire but still requiring one trigger pull per shot.

For this reason, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has declared multiple times that the feds tight restrictions on machine guns do not cover bump stocks.

Feinstein is also skeptical of the executive branch's power to ban bump stocks unilaterally. In a February statement, she said bluntly that the ATF "currently lacks authority under the law to ban bump stocks."

"If ATF tries to ban these devices after admitting repeatedly that it lacks the authority to do so, that process could be tied up in court for years, and that would mean bump stocks would continue to be sold." And indeed, Gun Owners of America has suggested it might pursue legal action against an executive bump stock ban.

The draft rules announced by Sessions will be reviewed by the Office of Budget and Management before being made public.

Photo Credit: Pedro Portal/TNS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Won't it be hilarious if they can't even get this one tiny sacrifice that few people even care about.

  • timbo||

    If we ban trigger fingers, would the legislation not be just as futile?

  • dbs5347||

    They shouldn't get it because it's inconsistent with the law they are trying to apply and it's pointless and stupid given both that the devices n question are associated with use in a grand total of one crime and that they are not even necessary to cause a semi-auto rifle to bump fire. The total benefit will be exactly zero.

  • Hugh Akston||

    President Trump is absolutely committed to ensuring the safety and security of every American

    I've got some bad news for him.

  • Jerryskids||

    That sort of thinking worked so well for Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative, didn't it?

  • John||

    I don't see how they do. You never know about courts and the 2nd Amendment. But as a matter of administrative law, I don't think they have the authority to do this and can't see how any honest court could say they do.

    I have no doubt this will be challenged in court. Unless they get a judge who just says "screw the law because GUNS", which is entirely possible, there is no way this thing stands. It is so obvious, it makes me wonder if they did it knowing it would be overturned.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I agree with the legal question here; Bump stocks simply, unambiguously, are legal under current statutory law. It's not even a close call.

    But it's also quite likely they'll find a judge who'll rule the opposite, because "guns".

    The real concern here is that when it eventually reaches the Supreme court, they punt too, because "guns". When we should actually be going in the opposite direction; Congress never had the enumerated power to ban things in the first place!

    I'd sure like to see those draft rules.

  • John||

    I agree with you. I have no faith in the courts applying the law fairly in any case involving guns. We will see I guess.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The problem with the bump stock "distraction" is that it has the chance to set up dangerous precedence. You're not even banning a weapon, you're banning an attachment. To say, legally, that Congress or the President has the ability to ban a firearm accessory that modifies the rate of fire, is not too far (at least in my mind) from saying that maybe they have the ability to ban a firearm that responds to devices that intend to increase their rate of fire (ie semi-autos). Especially when you have thousands of Youtube videos showing people how to modify their ARs with everyday items that will never be capable of being banned.

    I fear this "populist distraction" becomes a dangerous precedent. One thing is for certain... as much as the Trumpites think capitulation on bump stocks will make the push for more gun control go away, it won't.

  • vek||

    I agree with the sentiment. What about silly little things like the crank attachments that also allow guns to fire fast as hell? It's totally a slippery slope thing to the max.

  • dbs5347||

    You don't even need silly cranks. Name a semi-auto firearm platform and there's an excellent chance somebody has already figured out a true full auto modification for it that often doesn't even require a receiver modification. For example:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHkr1YAUq5M

  • vek||

    But that of course is illegal. For the time being the crank things, as with bump stocks, are legal to use. If you care about staying within the law it matters!

  • dbs5347||

    The biggest single problem, as with many regulations, is that it's irrational and illogical. A bump stock or bump stocks have been used, as far as I know, in a total of exactly one crime and whether or not they actually played any significant role in that crime is highly doubtful unless one believes that it would be impossible to inflict the same casualties firing semi-auto into a crowd of 20,000 people for 10+ minutes. On top of that so called "bump fire" can be initiated with simple technique no bump stock required and really, for anyone willing to break the law, like for example a person interested in committing mass murder, true full auto conversion of a number of semi-auto firearms is technically trivial. For the average AKM it requires one hole in the receiver a notch cut in a carrier rail and a few parts which have been imported in large numbers and which have been readily available with no controls at all for years to be dropped in. Other enterprising individuals have developed conversions that require no receiver modification whatsoever. The procedure for HK-XX series weapons is as simple as removing a notch from a full auto trigger housing with full auto trigger pack installed and dropping in a full auto carrier, assuming the rifle doesn't already have one. In either case, again, the parts are all readily available and have been for a long time.

  • Jerryskids||

    It really shouldn't be close, new rules require APA notice and comment due process and all that but the Supremes have decided second-guessing agency decisions on whether it's a new rule or merely a creative (but not too creative, only reasonably creative) re-interpretation of an existing rule is beyond their pay grade. "Who are we to judge?" they decided when it comes to interfering with the administrative state.

  • DarrenM||

    Just to speculate on the reasoning the courts will use to justify banning bump stocks under current legislation, the "intent" of the legislation was to ban guns that could attain a high rate of fire. With bump stocks, that rate of fire could be attained, therefore it will be covered.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    And they'll completely ignore that the same rate of fire can be achieved with just practice in holding the gun the right way.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Completely ignore, or use that to ban types of guns?

    If one can establish that the intent of the bump stock ban is to eliminate weapons with rate of fire > X, then all someone has to do is show through technique you can achieve > X rate of fire with an AR-15, for instance, and boom... you're looking at a whole class of guns that are subject to judicial review.

    Anybody that thinks throwing the gun grabbers a meaningless bone like bump stocks is going to make them go away hasn't been paying attention to history.

  • Longtobefree||

    They will have to make the rate of fire pretty high. A world War I bolt action rifle is rated at 20 to 30 AIMED rounds per minute. (look up SMLE or 'mad minute')
    That is for a real made to kill humans 30 cal high power military rifle.
    The record for this antique is 36 hits on a 48 inch target at 300 yards.

  • Jerryskids||

    Oliver Stone doesn't believe it's possible for a single gunman to fire that many aimed shots that fast.

  • Jerryskids||

    Oliver Stone doesn't believe it's possible for a single gunman to fire that many aimed shots that fast.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "can't see how any honest court could say they do"

    What honest courts could say is relevant how?

  • m.EK||

    Why does "statutory "law"" matter?
    The 2nd Amendment is not "law" for the citizenry. The first 10 Amendments were written as Constitutional LAW for the federal government, their employees, and contractors. The only thing they have to do with We The People is defining what the government can NOT legislate, decree, or "rule" on.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Very important piece from the Washington Post:

    Gun rights are about keeping white men on top

    I appreciate that Reason correctly identifies white supremacy as the primary motivation behind anti-immigration sentiment. I just hope one day you will realize that white supremacy also motivates pro-gun arguments. This place really needs to get on the right side of history by embracing common sense gun safety.

  • ||

    Gun rights are about keeping white men on top

    White men!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    WHITE! MEN!

  • MichaelL||

    To hear it told, the second amendment was, also, about keeping black men from being, even more, repressed! In someplace, like Chicago, the illegal guns are responsible for many black deaths. But, at least those deaths are not the result of tyranny from the white man. From my understanding, there was a time when gun ownership was explicitly affirmed for black men, as equally as non-blacks. Out here in fly-over country, there is no doubt that gun ownership has nothing to do with race. Now, when it comes to us poor people, we can only own what we can afford!

  • silver.||

    Whew, what a roller coaster of a story!

  • Longtobefree||

    You are banned from posting anything on the web ever again until you get your first amendment free speech permit.
    It's only common sense to require free speech permits to keep idiots from posting online.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If it saves even one life of color, then it is worth it.

  • ||

    WaPo is apparently looking to out-Slate Slate.

  • Rhywun||

    That's dumb even for WaPo. He actually mentions that one of the first effects of Jim Crow was whites attempting to disarm blacks, and somehow that means "gun rights = white power". How can you argue with someone that stupid?

  • colorblindkid||

    When are these fucktards going to realize that around 60% of the gun murders in this country are young black men shooting each other, almost entirely with illegally obtained handguns? Any sort of crackdown on guns will have the exact same results as the War on Drugs: more black men in prison for no reason, more power and wealth diverted to gangs, all with absolutely no positive effects or reductions in gun violence.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Which might be why their focus is more gun laws, not enforcement.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Not that new laws will work without enforcement.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Oh they realize it. It's more important to appear to do something or to find a wedge issue to drive between you and your political opponent and claim that they want people to die, thereby cementing your place as the savior of humanity for having done something.

  • Rebel Scum||

    The first tangible gun control was to keep black former slaves disarmed. Try again.

  • Rossami||

    Wow. How hard did Wuertenberg have to work to get all that exactly backwards? Gun control has always been about racism. The entire history of the gun control movement has been about disarming unpopular minorities.

    There are so many errors and blatant falsehoods in that rant that even WaPo should be embarrassed to publish it.

  • vek||

    Silly Liberal-tarian troll, white men don't need guns to help us stay on top of brown people! We have our naturally higher IQs to help us do that already!* We need guns to keep the other white men we disagree with from tyrannizing us! Everybody knows this stuff.

    * Although those pesky Jews and Asians are of course a bit smarter than Europeans of course. But Asians are pretty chill, and the Jews are such a small percentage of the population we don't really need to worry about them actually taking over, other than as thought leaders of the leftists like they presently are.

  • dbs5347||

    [yawn] If you don't like the "white supremacist" USA, there is always the utopia of black Africa to move to.....I hear Somalia is great this time of year. One thing is for sure: You'll quickly find out what happens when only your dictator or the local warlord and his death squads have guns.

  • mad_kalak||

    Damn, that's funny, because historically gun control was mostly about keeping the black or swarthy southern European immigrants down. Can't have those pesky freedmen armed and all.

  • Presskh||

    You mean be on the right side of history and embrace "common sense" gun control, sort of like Hitler and Stalin instituted "common sense" gun control?

  • Longtobefree||

    And in a related story, the department of transportation has defined all automobiles as bicycles. This common sense step will by itself eliminate all automobile pollution, traffic deaths, and greatly reduce the cost of infrastructure.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    I'm waiting for the day when all politicians will be defined as canned hams.

  • DarrenM||

    They are massive carbon producers and must be regulated.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    They are also massive bovine excrement producers.

    Especially Chuck Schumer.

  • Longtobefree||

    BIGOT!
    Some will have to be canned 'anything but pork".

  • silver.||

    3 (or anything!) can equal 0 if you move the origin of the coordinate system!

  • Raging Statist||

    A friend of mine in Delaware years ago got his license taken away for riding a bike while intoxicated.

  • Jamespwpds||

    That's funny! It hit the stupid argument dead on!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All gun control is unconstitutional. Background checks, licensing requirements, and bans on armaments.

    Even the Prohibitionists knew that government needed a constitutional amendment to ban products because the Constitution only allows interstate commerce to be regulated not banned.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's interesting to me, I was discussing the topic of guns with someone yesterday and they said something along the lines of "The constitution is not absolute, and there is no reason we should think it to be. The 18th and 21st amendments even show that it is not absolute."

    So I mentioned how it is meant to be the absolute ruling document of our nation, and that it itself includes ways to modify itself. That's how the 18th and 21st thing happened, in fact. His response? "That's too slow though."

    I have no where to go with this, but thought it would be an anecdote people could be irritated about here.

  • Rhywun||

    You know who else wanted to "get stuff done" more quickly?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Larry the Cable Guy?

  • Jerryskids||

    Nagai Nagayoshi?

  • mad_kalak||

    Okay, I'll bite. I looked up the guy, and based on his bio, I don't see the joke.

  • ||

    His response? "That's too slow though."

    Enact legislation at 2,500 ft./s or don't enact it at all!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You tried BUCS.

    I always follow up with the constitution creates a slow process because there are always excuses to take people's rights away. The Founders actually hoped the USA would make it but if tyranny took hold again, Americans should remove that tyrannical government and start over.

    Almost all their checks and balances were to slow down the USA getting a tyranny again not prevent it. You cannot prevent it without a very involved classically liberal electorate or bloodshed.

  • vek||

    Well I can tell you we're certainly lacking in that "very involved classically liberal electorate" category, so I guess long term that's going to leave...?

  • dbs5347||

    What he really means is, it's too hard, or impossible, and therefore they just want to skip the step with the "living breathing document" crap.

  • Presskh||

    This person was obviously some dumbass who doesn't possess critical thinking skills and believes leftist propoganda like this. Unfortunately, there are a lot of similar dumbasses in this country.

  • ||

    Thanks a pant-load Bitschgi for refusing to go the extra couple internet clicks to find some stock imagery of an actual bump stock. A regular AR-15 should work well enough, numbnuts.

  • ||

    Stop yer gunsplaining.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Britches gives so little of a fuck that the total amount of available fucks in the universe decreases measurably every time he posts something.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think that makes him the true Randian ideal.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    See? Now he's responded to mad.casual by replacing the original picture with one of stupid Jeff Sessions - getting pegged with a shampoo bottle, if his facial expression is any guide.

  • Mr. Weebles||

    I own a bump stock. Will they be buying it from me or will I be expected to turn it in without compensation?

    My other option is a boat mishap but I do not own a boat.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You should have gotten a Hellfire trigger, instead. Much superior. Works great on my Calico.

  • Frank Thorn||

    Just tell them you borrowed one on mine.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Did the Florida shooter use a bump stock?

  • ||

    Do Somethingism cares not about results.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He could have. HE COULD HAVE.

  • silver.||

    RTFA IT WAS BANNED IN FLORIDA AFTER VEGAS AND PEOPLE STILL DIED OH GOD THERE'S GOING TO BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Maybe we should walk out of something. Like school, or work. WHO'S WITH ME?!

  • Billy Bones||

    Well, if you are giving the appearance of "doing something" while "doing nothing at all", this is it.

  • TxJack 112||

    The real danger is if the government can redefine a bump stock as a machine gun, then it also de facto redefines a semi auto rifle as a machine gun. A bump stock may increase the rate of fire, but it still requires the trigger to be pulled for each shot. Therefore, by changing the definition of a bump stock to a machine gun, then every AR or variant rifle now in private hands will become illegal.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    As does every semi-automatic rifle and pistol AND revolvers. All of them.

  • Jerryskids||

    I have a double-barreled shotgun that fires both barrels with a single full trigger pull. And an old pump shot gun that'll fire as fast as you can operate the slide if you keep the trigger pulled. Are those machine guns?

  • Chumby||

    Why do you hate the children?

  • Chasman1965||

    Exactly. That's why it's foolish to do this as an executive action. Should be a carefully defined law.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    If they do manage to ban them, are they going to confiscate all that are in the hands of citizens? They'd have to, wouldn't they? Not gonna end well.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What about a Pimp Stock? Those are still ok, right?

  • Longtobefree||

    For now, grasshopper, for now - - - - - - - -

    Stormy's bump and grind is still legal however.

  • Cy||

    As long as it doesn't have a black cock ring attachment, that would make it an assault weapon.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Ban or no, it is not going to stop someone from acquiring a bump-stock. It's a plastic sleeve with a spring. Any idiot can make one.

  • Mr. Weebles||

    Bump stocks do not have a spring.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Either way, my point stands.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Trump is good at playing to the morons the Gee Oh Pee has rounded up. Illiterate chumps are into sacrifice, so Trump is throwing bump stocks into the bleachers as a sop to suckers. The idiots will line up for miles to have him tattoo his autograph on their forearms, then rush to the bar bragging about how "me' 'n The Don" passed the Kristallnacht law all over the Second Amendment's face, by dad! That'll show them meth-tootin' Joos 'n Darkies who's boss!"
    My question? Can we negotiate pay cuts for militarized First Responder™ unions since the danger is gone?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    http://www.politifact.com/trut.....mp-stocks/

    Bump Fire and Slide Fire should be loving this. They'll make more on the lawsuit against the ATF than they ever would have selling their gimmicky little devices.

  • silver.||

    "Obama issued a slew of executive orders promoting stricter gun control, which the Trump administration has been rolling back, including a measure that previously prevented people with mental illness from buying guns."

    Trump did not roll back a measure that prevented people with mental illness from buying guns. He rolled back a measure that prevented ~80,000 people who are on Social Security disability who were inferred to be mentally handicapped from buying guns. Because they were (mostly) elderly and had help filing paperwork. I'm sure they were so surprised when they made their monthly visit to Bob's Gun Store and discovered that they couldn't buy another firearm with their $1,200/month.

    Did I miss anything, Politifact?
    Mostly false. Guns are scary.
    Screw you.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's Bob's Gun Shop, and i'll have you know that, in addition to being knowledgeable and friendly, they're very reasonably priced.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Sorry, I didn't make it that far. Picked the first link that referenced Bump Fire and Slide Fire getting ATF approval that bump stocks were legal.

  • silver.||

    Nah you're fine, I was venting.

  • ranrod||

    Pastor Chuck Baldwin: They Are Coming For Our Guns!
    Right about now I hear the Trump toadies shouting from their rocking chairs, "Donald Trump is pro-Second Amendment; he would never sign a gun control bill into law." Are you willing to bet your AR-15 or Ruger Mini-14 on it?
    Anyone who really thinks that they can depend on Donald Trump to keep his word about protecting the Second Amendment is gambling their liberties on the word of a disingenuous, unsavory, and untrustworthy conniver. Cutting deals is what Trump brags that he does better than anybody. He wrote the book on it. Cutting a deal to sign another gun control bill for some favor down the road is extremely likely with Trump.
    Plus, the ever compromising National Rifle Association (NRA) is providing Trump all of the cover he needs to affix his signature to another gun control bill by coming out in support of legislation banning "bump stocks." Check the record, folks, and you will discover that virtually every gun control bill on the books—going back to the 1920's—was put there with the approbation of the NRA. Like almost every national special interest group, the NRA exists more for the benefit of the special interest group than it does for the benefit of the cause it claims to represent.

  • ranrod||

    To enact ANY gun control law is to give in to the erroneous notion that an inanimate object is the source of evil and that we must allow government to exercise dominion over our liberties in the name of protecting us from that inanimate object—whatever it is. The entire presupposition is fatally flawed. How anyone who claims to believe in liberty and the fundamental right of self-defense can swallow this illogic defies common sense.
    Predictably, in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shootings (which I am convinced was another government false flag involving multiple shooters) the U.S. Congress is taking aim at our guns. Specifically, at least 16 gun control bills have been filed in
    Congress since the Vegas shootings. Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) President Gary Marbut recently sent out this summary of current gun control bills in the U.S. House and Senate.
    S. 1923 – Expands background checks of firearms
    HR 4025 – Expands reporting of multiple firearms sales
    S. 1915 – Would require all firearms to be personalized for restricted access and use
    S. 1939 – Repeals the Lawful Protection in Commerce law that would allow lawsuits against FFL's and manufacturers

  • ranrod||

    Each of these bills is an egregious assault against the Second Amendment, but the proposed bills that would "ban parts that increase the rate of fire for a semi-automatic firearm" are especially draconian. The wording of these gun control bills is so vague that the ATF or a gun-grabbing judge could interpret the bills to mean just about anything. This is just a clever way of giving the government another opportunity to ban whatever it wants—including banning the semi-automatic rifle itself. This is the REAL OBJECTIVE of gun control zealots.
    http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Ar.....-Guns.aspx

  • vek||

    Fucking Trump, what a god damn CUCK!

    He is very unwise to cave on something like this. I don't think he is cucking because he's trying to virtue signal like most of the Democrats. I think he really believes this is a good idea, although I'm sure he realizes it's not going to have much of an effect IRL. But that's exactly why he should not cave. If he IS trying to virtue signal to moderates or something, you'd think he'd have learned his lesson that virtue signalling to leftists is never going to gain him any love, just piss off his base.

    I guess this is what we get for electing a New York Democrat from the 1970s though. Still better than Hillary would have been, but I DO wish he'd walk the line a little better on a lot of things.

  • Chumby||

    If this goes through but before it happens, would there be a bump in bump stock stock?

  • dbs5347||

    More pointless stupidity, in this case without even any legal basis, over something used in a grand total of one crime. Even there it only played a significant role if you believe it would be impossible to kill 58 people firing unassisted semi-automatic for 10+ minutes straight into a crowd of 20,000+.

  • Hank Phillips||

    What crime? For all the Altrurian huffing and puffing, that nonentity with no good ID, no clear photos, no reliable place of residence and no tax returns is as good an unperson as anyone in Orwell's 1984. It's as though he never existed. I do not know if this means it's OK to shoot rednecks or if the guy is a government agent gone berserker and "it would serve no good purpose" to poke into that closet. But the silence on him is deafening. Pop quiz... the shooter's name was: ______

  • MichaelL||

    The question is, "How many times would one be able to pull a trigger, rapidly, on a semi-auto?" I would think that one could get a very high rate of fire by pulling the trigger repeatedly and rapidly. One's hand may become fatigued. But, I would think that many, many trigger pulls could be accomplished in ten minutes.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Christian should bone up on the difference between rights and power. Governments--monopolies on deadly force--have powers. Individuals who exercise a moral claim to freedom of action have rights. Rights are characterized by the absence of coercion. Power in politics, as in physics, is a time derivative. Political power is the rate at which a political State can snuff out individual lives. Germany and Japan were relevant examples before physics made conscription obsolete. Readers will understand your articles better if these distinctions are clear.

  • MichaelL||

    I thought the first intentions of the founding fathers were to be able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. That includes anything we could get our hands on! Hopefully, we also have people in the military who would not turn their arms on us! But, the second amendment has been gutted by those who think it refers to "muskets"!

  • vek||

    Yeah, if (more likely when) the USA even has another civil war, the VAST majority of the military will not stand behind anything remotely resembling the current left wing in the USA, so the Dems are out. That said they might support a right leaning fascist-y group. But it could be worse. For all practical intents and purposes living under Franco, Mussolini, or Pinochet was VASTLY better than living under Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. Hitler was really the outlier in the fascist camp, and the rest of the dudes weren't my cup of tea, but frankly weren't much worse than any other governments on earth. At least some of them got to give out helicopter rides to leftists, so the fascist dark cloud would have its silver lining! LOL

  • Barry Gold||

    Feinstein is quite right. *If* bump stocks are to be banned, it should be by act of Congress. [I have some doubts of the efficacy of such a ban, however.

  • Bob2||

    Since this isn't a gun, just a plastic accessory, it should probably fall to the Consumer Product Safety Commission just like they regulated Jarts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_darts .
    There will be a rush to push mostly symbolic and ineffective laws and then they come back later and say 'See, it didn't work, we need more'.
    No matter what, it will be as pointless in its intent as in its effect.
    A good guy with a gun is almost as fast and more accurate - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTb6hsSkV1w
    Or search " belt loop bump fire" on youtube to understand why we Must ban evil beltloops and all walk around with the saggy gangsta look.

  • m.EK||

    Correct me if I'm wrong, please!
    Did the "people" in the DOJ swear or affirm the Oath of Office?
    When did We The People or our happy state legislatures alter the 2nd Amendment?
    If the DOJ did swear to honor the Constitution. If the 2nd Amendment is still part of the Constitution in the written form in my handy Constitution booklet. Then I ask, HOW can legislation or decree or a "ruling" (even by the so called supreme court) add to, subtract from, or alter the Constitution in ANY manner or form?
    Unless We The People CHOOSE to ignore the Oath of Office (which is a LEGAL AND BINDING CONTRACT with the citizenry) that is required by LAW for the "official" to swear or affirm (a vow, a promise, a giving of one's sacred honor), then they are required by Constitutional LAW to honor the Constitution AS WRITTEN, until such time as a SUCCESSFUL AMENDMENT PROCESS has altered the contract. Why is this such a reach to understand? This is simply the way the Constitution was written. This is the reason for the Oath of Office.
    By the way, the Oath of Office is the sword over the necks of the office holders. It is a CIVIL contract that allows the citizenry to call these assholes to the carpet for ignoring their Oaths! It is a way of working around a corrupt government, for, as a civil contract, their ESTATES can be used in the tort aspect of the court case for reparations to those they have harmed.
    Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    No, which is why they announced it.

    It'll be challenged and a stay obtained. And lengthy court case, it'll be overturned. Saves Congress from doing anything and prevents a ban.

    Manufacturers can create an artificial shortage and jack up the prices

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online