“A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of ‘machinegun’ set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.”
Related: 97.8% of Mass Shootings Occur in Gun-Free Zones
Also, from Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod’s 13-3 majority opinion.
A rich legal tradition supports the “well known rule” that “penal laws are to be construed strictly”…(United States v. Wiltberger). As Chief Justice Marshall explained long ago, the rule “is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. It is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.”
The current Congress will not likely propose, act on, or pass any bump stock bans, and there’s no indication that ATF intends to appeal to the US Supreme Court, but I feel confident they want that.
I’ll take the win! And maybe we should figure out a better way to make emotional pleas in favor of good guys with guns who stop shooters.
The Las Vegas Mass shooter event, much like any similar incident, catalyzes gun grabbers to punish the law-abiding who, if present, armed and able, would attempt to save lives by returning fire. The Vegas shooter was elevated in a nearby building so shooting back was never an option, not that anyone targeted was armed. But that event continues to swirl with conspiracy and plenty of legitimate questions.
Most mass shootings happen at ground level in places where shooters believe they have a force advantage. But not one so-called common-sense gun law addresses these facts. The gun-grabbers remedy is to create more gun-free zones instead of fewer, with Chicago being the poster child for why this tack is an act of planned failure.
Cargill vs Garland (Bump stock ban)
