ATF Returns Stolen Bump Stock
BY Herschel Smith
3 months, 1 week ago
Stolen by the ATF, that is.
David Codrea writing at Ammoland displays his bump stock, returned by the ATF (grudgingly, I’m sure).
The reason I obtained the stock in the first place was to establish standing for a legal complaint (I don’t even own a Ruger 10-22 rifle the stock is made for and never intended to use it). I’d originally joined in a lawsuit to force the issue to the Supreme Court. Ours was merged with another lawsuit, but ultimately, the Cargill case prevailed.
There is another important paragraph.
Now, until somebody declares them illegal again, it’s just some pieces of inert plastic joined together that wouldn’t even make a very good club. And that brings us to a particularly dangerous admission coming from some influencers on “our side,” who say ATF didn’t have the authority to ban them, but that Congress does. Reject that. There’s no clause in the Constitution delegating that authority or exempting them from the universal “shall not be infringed” mandate intended to be binding on all branches. Saying it was the purview of Congress was used in legal arguments to get the ban overturned– now that it has been, it’s time to stop saying it.
I agree. That was the basis for the victory in the supreme court, but it’s a shallow victory. Congress doesn’t have the authority to do that at all, and the case was decided on violation of administrative law. I hate it when that happens, because the constitutional question is always avoided. I see no sense at all in a court that can only address the question brought to it on the most narrow grounds. It makes no sense to me that they cannot also decide constitutionality.
I don’t have one and have never used one. However, it was clever to buy one in order to be part of the legal machinations surrounding this issue.
Very well done, David, even though Cargill was the case that ended this stupidity. I would have done it if I had thought about it.
By the way, David sent this photo to me (and others on a mailing list) before posting to Ammoland). This is a note to their editors, with whom I have had run-ins.
On August 12, 2024 at 11:47 pm, Dan said:
When dealing with cases involving weapons, especially firearms, the courts do NOT want to deal with the issue of constitutionality. Because quite simply they have two choices. Toss out ALL the cases they hear because essentially ALL laws dealing with firearms are unconstitutional OR admit they don’t give a rats ass about the constitution and exist to support and expand government power at the expense of our rights. They don’t want to make either choice. So they tippy toe around the edges of the matter and talk about administrative minutiae. Because the judges/courts are cowardly and corrupt.
On August 13, 2024 at 12:16 pm, David Codrea said:
I own the photo so no prob.
Where the original prickliness came from is there are for-profit sites that take my (and other AmmoLand) stuff and post it in total without permission, including without even linking to the original.
I have told them you are in my circle of advisors and what you do here works to their advantage. If anybody says anything refer them to me.