Mediaboss Marketing

Today the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal rule banning bump stocks, ruling that a bump stock does not transform a firearm into an automatic weapon.

Project 21 Ambassador Craig DeLuz, a Second Amendment expert, discussed this case last week with NTD News Steve Lance, highlighting the implications that the decision would have both for the Second Amendment and separation of powers.

Craig DeLuz

On Capitol Report, Craig told Steve:

I think its an interesting decision for this reason: In this case, you have an administration thats decided that they are going to take something thats defined in statute and theyre going to try to redefine it in order to ban a firearm or a firearm part that they dont like.

Now when it comes to, for example, bump stocks: Not a lot of people own bump stocks. Not a lot of people are interested in owning bump stocks. So a lot of people decided, well were not even gonna really pay attention to that.

The problem with that is: What happens when you have an administration come along who starts to then say, well Im gonna redefine firearms or firearm parts that people do like? Right? Weve already allowed them to violate the separation of powers by trying to legislate from the executive branch. Believe it or not, the ATF does not get to make the law. They get to enforce the law.

I think thats probably the biggest part of what were going to be seeing in this decision. Its not just about the Second Amendment. Its a direct attack on the Second Amendment, but its really also about protecting the rest of the Constitution and separation of powers. I believe that this Supreme Court in particular recognizes the overreach that many in the executive branch at all levels of government sadly have undertaken.

The implication is going to be, number one, whether or not executive offices or executive departments have the ability to basically legislate from their departments. Part of it is going to be that.

The other part is going to be whether or not it is going to further the folks who dont support the Second Amendment in their belief that OK, so you have a right to keep and bear arms; you have the right to own a gun. But you dont have a right to the firearm parts that you want. You dont have a right to the gun that you want. You dont have a right to build your own firearm. You dont have a right to sell firearms.All of these things are now in question.

And theyre realizing that they cant take away the Second Amendment, but they can nibble away at all the things around the Second Amendment such that it becomes too cumbersome or too expensive to be able to exercise that right.

Theres always pressure on Congress to revisit the Second Amendment. The challenge is that most of the people who are applying that pressure, and most of the folks in Congress, have little to no understanding of firearms or firearms technology. So oftentimes what happens is that when they start to push solutions, those solutions dont actually solve the problem.

Thats also, quite frankly, been the issue in the courts. In many cases you have judges adjudicating over some of these court cases and they have very little understanding, once again, of firearm technology. For example, what is the definition of a gun? What is, in this case, a machine gun, when were talking about bump stocks? And when you look at the actual technology, you find out that in many cases the things that they are offering as solutions are not solutions.

Its smoke and mirrors. Its this Ive got to do something mentality.

And I always go back on that, and I always say, You know what? My car wont start, so I need to rotate the tires because, you know, Ive gotta do something.

Read the rest here:
Craig DeLuz: What the Supreme Court's Bump Stocks Ruling Means for the Second Amendment and Separation of ... - National Center for Public Policy...