Marc Thiessen:

Congressional Republicans are backing away from legislation banning “bump stocks” – devices used by Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock that effectively turn semi-automatic rifles into machine guns – and are turning to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to ban them by executive action instead.

“We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix, and then, frankly, we’d like to know how it happened in the first place,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., said in a news conference last week.

Ryan is wrong. Empowering ATF to ban firearms devices without explicit authorization from Congress is a far greater threat to the Second Amendment than any legislation Congress could pass.

In 2010, under President Barack Obama, ATF ruled that “bump-fire” stocks were legal under current federal law, declaring in a letter to manufacturer Slide Fire: “We find that the ‘bump-stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.” This was a proper, limited reading of our gun laws.

So far so good.  He’s right, of course.  Asking the ATF to ban bump stocks is asking the ATF to take the fall for infringement of the second amendment, an action that neither the Congress nor the NRA wants to be responsible for.  That’s why both have asked the ATF to do their dirty work for them.

Now Republicans want ATF to simply overturn its 2010 determination that bump stocks are legal – effectively banning them by executive fiat. Do conservatives really want to set the precedent that ATF can ban firearms or firearm devices without explicit authorization from Congress? Imagine what Hillary Clinton would have done with that power as president.

If ATF takes such action, it could set a precedent for other executive action on guns without explicit congressional authorization. A future Democratic president could use this precedent to have ATF reclassify all semi-automatic weapons as machine guns. They would argue, correctly, that you don’t actually need a bump-fire stock to produce a bump-fire effect. It can be accomplished with rubber bands or a belt loop, or even without any external device by a skilled marksman.

So, gun-control advocates could argue, all semi-automatic weapons are really in fact automatic guns – and thus banned under the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. They could use an ATF ruling banning bump stocks as precedent for a back-door reimposition of the so-called assault weapons ban.

For the party that railed against Obama’s unlawful executive actions on immigration and other issues to now urge President Donald Trump to take unlawful executive actions on guns that even Obama refused to take is stunning.

The better option is to pass limited, carefully crafted legislation to ban these devices. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and 38 Senate Democrats have introduced the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act that would “ban the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle’s rate of fire.” According to Feinstein, the bill “makes clear that its intent is to target only those accessories that increase a semi-automatic rifle’s rate of fire.”

Oh, well if she said it, it must be true.  The progressives really don’t want to target anything else beyond bump stocks.  And of course, Marc Thiessen was the former Bush speech writer.  Neither Marc nor Bush are conservative, any more than the “conservatives” he criticizes in his commentary.

And it’s no accident that you see a former Bush speech writer aligning himself with a proposed bill by Dianne Feinstein and other Senate democrats.  But we should thank Marc for the commentary.  At one and the same time, he demonstrated both the cowardliness and the traitorous spirit of “conservatives” in America.  Afraid to do what they want, and wanting to infringe on the only covenant that binds the nation together.  What a loathsome bunch.