By Tank Murdoch @TheNatSent
(TNS) Regardless of how you feel about “bump stocks” — after-market devices you can add to semi-automatic rifles in order make them mimic full-auto fire — you’d have to agree that any action the government takes to ban them would have to be constitutional.
At least, we think so.
- Check out “R.I.P. MIDDLE CLASS: Elite Globalists – Enemies from Withinâ€Â — download for FREE in Crisis Reports
As such, that’s why a federal court ruling caught our attention this week.
You may recall following the horrific murder of more than 50 people in Las Vegas on Oct. 1, 2017, led the Trump administration to ban bump stocks, because they were allegedly found to have been fitted to some of the rifles used during the attack.
However, as Reason magazine notes, even the previous anti-gun Obama administration had “determined that the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act did not prohibit bump stocks.”
Subsequent legal actions taken to reverse the Trump administration’s ban were either struck down by federal courts or review denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But that has changed.
U.S. District Judge Brantly Starr of the Northern District of Texas, who was, interestingly, appointed by President Trump, believes that the administration’s ban may be unconstitutional, and frankly, his logic is sound.
In Lane v. United States, he writes:
Bump stocks allow semi-automatic rifles to fire at a rate close to machine guns. In December 2018, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a final rule determining that bump stocks qualify as prohibited machine guns under federal law and required their destruction or surrender. Brian Lane lawfully purchased three bump stocks before the rule took effect and raises a Fifth Amendment challenge that the federal government must compensate him for taking his property.
The federal government responds that the rule falls under a valid use of the police power, which requires no compensation. But as explained below, the federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself. It is concerning that the federal government believes it swallowed the states whole. Assuming the federal government didn’t abolish the states to take their police power, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Court will allow the federal government to try again and explain which enumerated power justifies the federal regulation and whether it allows a taking without compensation. The Court requests that the federal government also address any limits on that federal power and the Court’s proper role in examining the validity of the underlying rule when determining if there was a compensable taking.
It should be noted that Judge Starr, 41, is one of the firebrand originalists recommended to the president by conserviative legal organizations who are trying to reshape the federal judiciary and move it away from ‘lawmaking’ judicial activism and back to its traditional role of simply deciding if Executive and Legislative branch actions comport with the Constitution.
Continuing, Starr rejected the notion that the federal government has any delegated police powers:
The federal government here raised the talisman of police power 31 times in its motion to dismiss and an additional 19 times in its reply. This seemed unusual to the Court because the Court had thought the police power is a power reserved for the states, not for the federal government.
Fearful the Court was wrong, it turned to the first place one should always turn to with such questions: the Constitution. Article I, section 8 enumerates the powers the People gave to the federal government at our Nation’s founding: the tax power, the borrowing power, the commerce power, the naturalization power, the bankruptcy power, the power to coin money, the postal power, the maritime power, and the war power. None of these powers is the police power.
As such, when implementing new rules and regulations — or passing legislation — it is incumbent upon the other two branches of government to rely on their enumerated powers:
Rather than deny the federal government’s motion to dismiss outright, the Court will allow it an opportunity to file a new motion to dismiss, based on the limited enumerated powers the federal government has (as confirmed by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and even Wikipedia).
Survival Legion Tee — $25.99
If the federal government opts for the commerce power, it should discuss the limitations in Lopez and Morrison. Also, the federal government should be prepared to address whether the validity of the final rule is an issue under the proper judicial framework for assessing the taking.
“Judge Starr is quite right. The federal government lacks a police power. And I haven’t seen this argument addressed in any other bumpstock cases,” writes attorney Josh Blackman for Reason.
Few would deny that what happened in Las Vegas was horrific, ghastly, and evil. The event spurred a lot of emotions. But imagine if our founders had established a form of government that allowed our elected officials to govern on emotions, instead of hard-and-fast written parameters. We’d have a lot fewer freedoms today.
- Click HERE to check out all of the cool survival gear that Survival Frog has to offer!
- Snake River Farms Beef
- DayOne Gear LLC
It’s not about whether the federal government ‘ought to’ ban bumpstocks; it’s about whether the federal government has the authority to do so, as Judge Starr reminds us.
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? COMMENT BELOW
Bump stocks are overpriced garbage. I tried one out, and yeah it works, but it looks stupid. Go ahead, heat up your barrel and make your rifle shoot like shit.
I’ve fired full-auto on many occasions. Waste of ammo. Better to get a nice trigger, and shoot 3 - round bursts, or simply shoot semi-auto, and make each round count!
.50cal (love your username btw)…I agree with you, but you are missing the point. It doesn’t matter whether bump stocks are wonderful or that they are garbage. What matters here is that the gov’t overstepped their boundaries, defined by the constitution. Of course they did. They always do. It’s a nice, rare, happy moment when a judge calls them out and puts them in their place.
Remove bump stock, and replace with 10 round magazine. Now what do you think? That’s the point, it’s not the item in question, it the powers the feds THINK they have.
Yes their junk. I wouldn’t own one either. But that $200 piece of junk thousands of Americans bought legally were harmed by a Federal ruling and subsequent actions that are most certainly unconstitutional. The buyers and the makers of bump stocks deserve their day in court. If the Feds can get away with their action on bump stocks they can do it to any American possessing any product the government decides should be banned. The same logic the Feds used in banning bump stocks can be used to ban trigger packs, gunsmith work, and most everything that enables a firearm… Read more »
You do you and I’ll do me. Don’t tell me what to do or not do.
Wow! The judge nailed it.
People recognized this and sought recourse through our Congressmen and Senators, and most would not listen. Their opinion as unConstiutional as the President’s is, on both sides of the aisle, they don’t like bump stocks, among other things, and thy have the power to force us to obey. quote George Bush “Don’t throw the Constitution up to me again. It’s jsut another G.. D….. piece of paper, I’m the President.”
So, under what power can the federal government ban any firearm such as machine guns, etc?
Take your rifle, hold it against your side of your waist, and learn to bumpfire. Go watch a video. You don’t need any stupid bumpfire stock. It’s a gimick.
It’s pretty stupid, and a waste of ammo.
This is not a debate about the pros and cons of ‘bump-stocks’. This is a Constitutional debate which this Judge correctly identified as Fed Agency ignoring State’s Rights, and the Peoples’ rights. The Feds work for Us, the people, and their job is to Protect Our Rights, not take those rights away.
This is a very positive ruling. Maybe it can be parlayed into regaining our 2nd Amendment as intended?
This is the type of Constitutional judge we so desperately need more of.
Banning “bump stocks†is indeed the exercise of a War Power. It is a War Power because it is in defense of citizens against terrorists, who (terrorists) are enemies of the USA at large.
I think you don’t understand the difference between a “terrorist” and a criminal. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, particularly against civilians, for either political or religious reasons, or more broadly for an ideology. Last I checked NOBODY has discovered a motive for the Vegas shooters rampage, therefore it cannot be terrorism. He was a nut job that wanted to kill people as near as anybody can tell, that’s it, a mass murdering criminal. WAR POWERS does not apply. Matter of fact, I am not aware of any ACTUAL terrorist attack in the US that has used a… Read more »
“But imagine if our founders had established a form of government that allowed our elected officials to govern on emotions, instead of hard-and-fast written parameters. We’d have a lot fewer freedoms today.” Current gubernatorial/public health officer ‘orders’ directed to all residents in their respective states are certainly founded on good intentions, however they are motivated in no small measure by a significant emotion: fear. People who have not been shown by clear and convincing evidence to be infected by Covid-19 are being denied 1A (peaceable assembly and exercise of religion), 2A (re gun/ammo purchase or receipt) and 5A (seizure of… Read more »