Letter to the Editor:
Congress outlawed the private possession and sale of machine guns in 1934 after headlines of gangsters, like Al Capone, robbing banks and killing law enforcement officers with machine guns. The firearm prohibited was defined as one that could shoot “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U. S. C. §5845(b).
Bipartisan pressure to do something after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting caused the ATF to adopt a new rule in 2019 that outlawed the private possession of bump stocks. After the new rule was adopted, Mr. Cargill acquired two bump stocks in order to turn them in and create standing for his suit. (Standing is the legal right to sue.). Cargill lost his case before a federal judge in San Antonio. Lost again before a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and then finally won in a rehearing before the entire Fifth Circuit sitting as a whole, called “en banc.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland then appealed the en banc decision to the US Supreme Court where he lost in an opinion written by Thomas and joined by the other conservative justices. Thomas’ decision for the majority is replete with sketches and diagrams and technical descriptions about the pulling of triggers. Of course, most of this is factual and facts are supposed to be determined by trial judges and, in this case, the trial judge ruled in favor of the ban.
Justice Sotomayer’s dissent is a breath of fresh air. She wrote: “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ Because I, like Congress, call that a machine gun, I respectfully dissent.”
What do you think?
What are the chances of Congress acting? Probably not much, ... For now, states can ban bump stocks through state laws. What should NH do?
Comments