The Supreme Court’s decision on the Bump Stock ban “was more of a victory for the rule of law than anything else. The BATF was trying to expand the scope of its regulatory powers well beyond what the law allowed it to do. The Supreme Court, with its current composition, more than any other court in my lifetime, is trying to limit the regulatory powers of government agencies to what the law granted them, not what might be politically popular regulations at any point in time.” Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., Crime Prevention Research Center, Sat 6/15/2024 6:55 AM.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, with Justice Alito concurring, but providing a so-called remedy for Congress to act to remove “bump stocks” from “civilian hands.” Justice Alito’s “simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns,” is for Congress to “amend the law,” which, in my opinion, is unconstitutional based upon the real purpose for the Second Amendment. Justice Alito lacks understanding for the real purpose of the Second Amendment; and it has nothing to do with hunting and the right of self-defense!
And, of course, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, without comment, wrote the dissenting opinion. The far-left liberals and Second Amendment deniers are enthralled by her statement:
“Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. . . 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 . . . I . . . call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent.”
Justice Thomas’s nineteen-page majority opinion—limited to the specific question at hand and NOT expanded as Justice Alito did—effectively shuts down the dissent’s argument which “fails on its own terms” and “fails to prove” anything contrary to the majority opinion.
Although the Supreme Court has finally acknowledged that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home, in the Bruen case, Justice Alito, like the Bump Stock opinion, also provided a roadmap as to how to circumvent the majority opinion as follows:
“Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. . . Nor have we disturbed anything . . . about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.”
As indicated above, Justice Alito ignored four words or the “plain text” of the Second Amendment, i.e., “shall not be infringed!” Not only did he ignore these four words, but he also explained exactly what laws would be acceptable to infringe on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” In the Bump Stock case, Alito advises Congress as to what can be done to remove bump stocks from “civilian hands” or rather, how to get around the majority opinion.
Unlike Justice Alito, the late Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) understood the real purpose for the Second Amendment: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers.” In other words, the Second Amendment empowers the people to rebel, as the American Colonists did, against their own government if said Government violates their rights.
Therefore, common sense would suggest that Congress, the States, and local communities cannot constitutionally restrict the types of weapons, e.g., machineguns or bump stocks, that Americans can own, which may be necessary to rebel against a tyrannical government. Would the American Founders/Framers approve of laws allowing the American military, a “standing army,” to possess machineguns and M-16s, while the civilian population can only own semi-automatic weapons, with 10-round magazines, or revolvers? NOT hardly!
The real issue that was ignored in the Bump Stock case was whether the National Firearms Act of 1934—restricting civilian ownership of machineguns—is constitutional in the first place!
Get a copy of Freedom vs. Democracy, The Supreme Court May Be Our Last Hope, Amazon.com: Freedom vs. Democracy : The Supreme Court May Be Our Last Hope eBook : Beard Jr. , Robert G.: Kindle Store. Chapter IV is titled, Gun Rights Case Changed Nothing. The Summary and Conclusion (Chapter XII), explains the three simple rule changes that the Supreme Court could make to get back on track, i.e., “it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments [by Congress and Government].” Get a paperback copy, highlight your favorite parts. Then send it to a Supreme Court Justice… maybe Clarence Thomas or Neil Gorsuch…
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect our First Amendment rights from a tyrannical government. We don’t need to fill out paperwork and obtain a license to exercise our First Amendment rights, so why do we have to jump through hoops to exercise our Second Amendment rights; and then, we can only do so under severe restrictions in many localities throughout the country? If passing laws worked, there would be no crime. Criminals do not obey the laws, period! Why should law-abiding citizens have less fire-power than criminals?
Dum Spiro Spero—While I breathe, I hope.
Slàinte mhath,
Robert (Mike) G. Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.