There are Few more Pressing Constitutional Issues than Ensuring Americans have the Right to Make Their Deadly Weapons Deadlier
Even when a sensible law is passed by their own side, the neo-fascist lords of the Supreme Court can’t let it stand. Bump stocks, nifty little doodads that use the recoil of semi-automatic rifles to make them bounce back and forth in the shooter’s grip so that the trigger is rapidly tapped and the gun fires more quickly, effectively making them function like machine guns, are legal once more. The comparison to machine guns was the point of contention for the “Justices.” In 2019, under Trump’s presidency and with his directive, Congress banned bump stocks by using existing statutes in the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act which banned machine guns.
The argument, by my understanding, is that because the statutes specifically ban machine guns, rather than accessories that make semi-automatic rifles function like machine guns, they can’t be applied to bump stocks. It’s a technicality, the kind of thing that would only logically invalidate the banning of bump stocks if the judges completely ignored the intention of the law and focused with strict pedantic dickishness on the exact language of the text in order to justify the result they wanted, which they did.
Justice Sotomayor made the standard “it quacks like a duck” argument in her dissent to the ruling. It would follow in that rhetoric that if it fires like a machine gun, kills people as quickly, indiscriminately, and in as large numbers as a machine gun, then it is a machine gun. But, the “Justices” that actually have power decided that an accessory which makes something legal function like something illegal cannot be made illegal. Which does seem like a silly distinction.
Propane torches are not illegal. Neither are power washers or diesel fuel. If I invented a doodad which enabled you to combine those materials into a functional flamethrower, would I be breaking the law?
No, actually, because flamethrowers are not illegal, nor is it illegal to MacGyver one for yourself. Flamethrowers are legal to own in the US, are not federally regulated, and are ironically not considered firearms. So that’s not a good example for my argument, but isn’t it a fun piece of legal trivia? Have fun with that, and with incinerating yourself and everything within at least a half-block radius.
But what if I gave you the tools to make yourself a grenade launcher. Would that be illegal?
Also no. It is legal for civilians to own grenade launchers in the United States. You don’t even need to bother with the hassle of MacGyvering one if you find a seller for the ammo and the launcher itself. Hell, you can just buy yourself a flare launcher, load it with 37mm impact munitions, and go wild. Isn’t learning about ridiculous deadly weapons and our legislators’ abdication of duty to keep lunatics and random jackoffs from having them fun?
The Supreme Court is not alone in blame. If Congress wanted to ban bump stocks, then they should have done so outright, rather than relying on an existing law banning machine guns. They could also make laws restricting ownership for flamethrowers and rocket launchers while they’re at it. And I know I’m going to get a lot of criticism from the freedom of indiscriminate destruction crowd for even suggesting that, but so be it. Yes, I’m sure they’re awesome. If I had an opportunity to throw flames or launch grenades in a relatively safe environment, you bet I would. But you don’t need to own one, keep it in your house, and use it regularly. If you do, doing something illegal with those inexplicably legal weapons would be inevitable. Much like people who put doodads on their assault rifles to make them fire six bullets a second.