LiveLife
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 34,379
But the Supreme Court already ruled in Heller that "modern" arms like semi-auto firearms are protected by the Second Amendment and in Caetano expanded to include other "modern" types of arms/accessories (Adding "modern" accessories like red dot/fiber optic sight or scope to legal firearm does not make it illegal).Congress could change the law and make bump stocks illegal ... Then someone would take the new law to court ... if bump stocks are protected by the 2A. That is the way things are supposed to work.
Cargill ruling said nothing about banning semi-auto firearm but stated adding accessory to legal semi-auto firearm (In this case bump stock but will also apply to pistol brace and forced reset trigger, etc. later) doesn't make it illegal regardless of resulting increased rate of fire - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-bump-stock-lawsuits.921442/#post-12920825
Congress could have linked the definition of “machinegun” to a weapon’s rate of fire, as the dissent would prefer. But, it instead enacted a statute that turns on whether a weapon can fire more than one shot “automatically ... by a single function of the trigger.”
And Supreme Court ruling and justice Alito's concurring opinion pointed out what Congress should focus/do and that is addressing executive branch/administrative agency exceeding statutory authority ... Not continuing to violate Second Amendment rights of minority gun owners.
ATF does not dispute that this complete process is what constitutes a “single function of the trigger.” ... For each shot, the shooter must engage the trigger and then release the trigger to allow it to reset. Any additional shot fired after one cycle is the result of a separate and distinct “function of the trigger.” Nothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock.
ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns.
So no, I do not believe Congress will change the law to make bump stocks illegal as it will immediately be challenged. NY defied Bruen ruling and changed law only eight days after Bruen ruling but it was immediately challenged by five lawsuits and that challenge is back at the Supreme Court to be ruled along with Rahimi case after Monday - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-3#post-12922326
Last edited: