I concur with the editors of the Washington Post:
The only problem is that Justice Thomas was correct to point out that the 2018 regulation, issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, did not represent that agency’s consistent view. In fact, it represented a 180-degree reversal of ATF’s position on bump stocks before the Las Vegas massacre, which had been more or less the same one that Justice Thomas articulated in his opinion. This history shows what can go wrong when such clearly legislative matters are left up to the bureaucracy and the courts. It would be far preferable for Congress to provide fresh guidance, instead of relying on regulators and judges to parse a 90-year-old statutory text.
That is, the surest way to effectuate a bump stock ban that so many Americans clearly want, and which is so clearly consistent with common sense, is through a law.
The regulation was not struck down on Second Amendment grounds but as exceeding the limits of the pre-existing statute.
This problem isn’t restricted to bump stocks but infuses many of the issues producing so much heat these days. There is a word for rule by executive branch regulations and court decisions and it isn’t democracy. It is authoritarianism.
I believe that what we are doing now is not just authoritarian but cowardly. When groups influential with the White House can’t cobble together enough votes to pass legislation or don’t want to leave their fingers on policies they know are unpopular, they get their way through regulations and compliant courts. The Congress needs to amend the National Firearms Act to ban bump stocks. They should also act to control immigration, take a position on abortion, and enact the environmental laws they see fit to put in place. Don’t leave the heavy lifting to the executive branch regulations and the courts.
Dave Schuler: This problem isn’t restricted to bump stocks but infuses many of the issues producing so much heat these days. There is a word for rule by executive branch regulations and court decisions and it isn’t democracy. It is authoritarianism.
Well, executive power is certainly an exercise of power, but it is constrained by the judicial process, and by legislative action.
Certainly, the legislature has the power to intervene either proactively or reactively; however, in the sclerotic U.S. legislative process, passing legislation requires a majority in the House, a supermajority in the Senate*, and the a President** willing to sign the bill. That means, even when there is strong support for a bill, it may never become law.
_
* Senators representing as few as 25% of the people can bottle up legislation through the minoritarian structure of the Senate and the arcane rules of the filibuster.
** Due to the Electoral College, the President may not even represent a majority of the voters.
The law was poorly written and did not envision bump stocks. That’s true of a lot of our laws but it’s also true that our world has changed drastically since the constitution was written so you end up needing laws it doesnt really quite cover. The answer would be for Congress to be involved but they wont. They will continue to write vague laws so they can blame the executive branch or the courts if they dont like the outcome.
I think that you also need to assign some blame to the people taking the case to court. It was pretty clear the intent is not have people having weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute.
Steve
Then stop voting for the same people in Congress.
Heh. As long as we have a disengaged population, or those who think only OTHER’s representatives are misguided boobs Dave’s comment will apply. As it has for quite some time.
We have only ourselves to blame
We could try term limits. But show of hands. Which legislators would vote for that. And what population will ratify a Constitutional amendment?
Politics is a racket.
steve: The law was poorly written and did not envision bump stocks.
It’s difficult to write a law that covers the unforeseen.
steve: They will continue to write vague laws so they can blame the executive branch or the courts if they dont like the outcome.
Ideally, a legislature should be nimble enough to make course corrections as the impact of a law occurs or the situation evolves. However, because legislation is so difficult to enact in the United States, broad laws are devised specifically to try and cover the unforeseen. For instance, Congress doesn’t outlaw specific pollutants (new ones being invented every day), but has created an administrative system to regulate pollutants generally based on objective and scientific principles.
Dave Schuler: Then stop voting for the same people in Congress.
Minoritarian rule reduces the power of the franchise. Minorities are easier to influence or corrupt than the majority.
So does gerrymandering. And legal barriers to appearing on the ballot. So does excessive power in the hands of the party leadership, Congressional seniority rules, and prohibitions on amendments offered from the floor. So does judicial review. Indeed, so does representative government.
There are an enormous number of things that reduce the power of the franchise. I don’t want a strictly majoritarian government. Do you? That would mean that 1/2+1 of the voters could put any law they cared to in place including banning particular speech, outlawing religion, or eliminating due process. They could vote to executive the other 1/2-1 of the population.
There is no need to outlaw bump stocks, and doing so would be idiotic.
Basically, the law should be amended to include any device or attachment which would allow a weapon to maintain a sustained rate of fire of x rounds per second. Actually, exceeding the user’s physical action and defining all the terms would be better.
This would also cover the semi-auto pistol attachments.
PS: There is a difference between gun, machine gun, automatic firearm, and semi-automatic firearm.
Dave Schuler: I don’t want a strictly majoritarian government. Do you?
Saying “stop voting for the same people in Congress” ignores the problem of the minoritarian and sclerotic structure of the U.S. political system. That’s why Jim Crow lasted so long.