{"id":6349,"date":"2018-04-23T20:04:18","date_gmt":"2018-04-24T03:04:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/?p=6349"},"modified":"2018-04-23T20:13:34","modified_gmt":"2018-04-24T03:13:34","slug":"bump-stocks-and-the-bill-of-rights-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/?p=6349","title":{"rendered":"Bump stocks and the Bill of Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Senate Judiciary committee heard testimony Dec. 8 on a proposal to try to outlaw \u201cbump stocks\u201d — devices that allow light, modern, semi-automatic rifles to fire at rates similar to machine pistols.<\/p>\n

As usual when bizarre new \u201cgun control\u201d proposals surface, the victim-disarmament gang hope to capitalize on a recent mass shooting by someone who\u2019d been using mood-altering drugs — the gunman found dead after allegedly employing \u201cbump stocks\u201d as he killed 58 people and injured some 500 others, shooting out of his hotel room window at an outdoor concert crowd in Las Vegas Oct. 1 (though some experts have expressed the opinion he probably could have killed more people if he\u2019d taken single, aimed shots.)<\/p>\n

\u201cLawmakers on both sides of the aisle have found common ground in their interest to update federal law to prohibit bump fire devices alongside machine guns,\u201d wrote Daniel Terrill on Dec. 8 at guns.com.<\/p>\n

Sorry, Daniel, but machine guns are of course not \u201cprohibited.\u201d The 1934 National Firearms Act merely subjects them to a $200 tax . . . though the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives certainly does enforce that law in a manner designed to make buying a machine gun as onerous and expensive as possible.<\/p>\n

Recall that the courts OK\u2019d that unconstitutional 1934 enactment only because the federals insisted it was a TAX measure.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

But when you pay the federal excise tax on auto tires, do you have to fill out forms, submit fingerprints, and then drive around for months on your old, bald rubber while you await \u201capproval\u201d of your \u201cClass 3 Tire\u201d application? And is the nation\u2019s tire supply limited to those manufactured before 1934 or 1968, with no new tire manufacturing or importing \u201cfor civilian use\u201d allowed \u2013 thus driving tire prices through the roof?<\/p>\n

Of course not. New tires flood the market like bunny rabbits in my garden, the federal tax is added into the price, and you\u2019re free to pay cash on the spot and drive away on your new radials without so much as showing ID.<\/p>\n

Similarly, if the federals weren\u2019t lying when they said the $200 machine gun tax — $200 in 1934 being equivalent to something between $3,000 and $12,000 today — was designed to raise revenue, we\u2019d be able to buy newly manufactured 50-caliber belt-fed Brownings off the shelf by paying our $200 tax in cash \u2013- no ID required \u2013- at 24-hour drive-through windows. <\/p>\n

Since videos are readily available online, showing how a shooter can get pretty much the same effect as provided by a \u201cbump stock\u201d by hooking his thumb into his belt loop, it should be interesting to see how on earth such a ban could be crafted. <\/p>\n

J. Thomas Manger, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association and Chief of Police in Montgomery County, Maryland, said his organization \u201cstrongly supports\u201d the proposal to ban bump stocks and other similar devices.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe sole and pointless purpose of the bump stock is to accelerate the rate of fire to equal fully automatic firepower — exactly what Congress attempted to stop with previous legislation that bars fully automatic weapons,\u201d Manger said in his prepared statement.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

One more time (anyone getting tired of this, yet?), fully automatic weapons are not \u201cbarred,\u201d Chief Manger. The Las Vegas Yellow Pages are full of ads for shooting ranges where out-of-town tourists are invited to \u201ccome shoot a machine gun.\u201d None have ever been busted \u201cbecause machine guns are illegal.\u201d Because they\u2019re not.<\/p>\n

\u201cHow can this device be justified for sporting or hunting?\u201d Chief Manger then asks.<\/p>\n

Aha. Now Chief Manger lets the cat out of the bag. Our Bill of Rights says nothing about \u201csporting and hunting.\u201d The \u201csporting use\u201d rationale comes from the gun control tradition of a very different nation: Nazi Germany.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

WHERE THE GUN-GRABBERS GOT \u2018SPORTING USE\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

At https:\/\/www.mises.org\/library\/gun-control-nazi-germany<\/a>, Audrey Kline reviews Stephen Halbrook\u2019s 2013 book, \u201cGun Control in the Third Reich\u201d which \u201coffers a compelling and important account of the role of gun prohibition in aiding Hitler\u2019s goals of exterminating the Jews and other \u2018enemies of the state,\u2019\u201d often using existing gun-control laws which had been \u201ccreated with supposedly good intent.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe rapid pace with which Hitler disarmed the populace in Germany is startling,\u201d she notes. \u201cUltimately, the prohibitions enacted by the Nazi regime led to monopoly control of firearms by the Nazis and eliminated the ability of many groups in society to defend themselves. . . .<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cWell-meaning clauses in the laws were subsequently used to provide the government with complete control over gun ownership, creating registries of gun and ammunition ownership, which ultimately fell into the hands of the Nazis,\u201d Ms. Kline continues, summarizing attorney Halbrook\u2019s research. \u201cThese lists were methodically used to disarm citizens, . . .\u201d although the German gun-control laws still \u201callowed possession of very expensive long arms that would not be affordable for the majority of the population\u201d . . . for \u201chunting and sporting use,\u201d you understand, by the wealthy Nazi-supporting Junker families on their luxurious hunting estates.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 1928 Firearms Law was utilized to identify the so-called enemies of the state, locate them, interview them, and subsequently confiscate their weapons,\u201d Kline continues, summarizing Halbrook. By November 1938, \u201ca campaign to arrest legally registered Jewish owners of firearms was underway. . . . Upward of 30,000 Jews were arrested. Any Jews resisting arrest were ordered shot on the spot.\u201d<\/p>\n

Interestingly, this same Stephen Halbrook joined fellow attorney Dave Kopel in filing statements with the Senate committee in December, urging the committee to narrow the language of the measure being considered regarding bump stocks.<\/p>\n

Halbrook called the language in the bill \u201cdisturbing\u201d and argued it would \u201cban any part that\u2019s designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire for a semiautomatic rifle,\u201d adding the term \u201cbump stock\u201d is ambiguous, so legislators would need to be very clear in defining it in order to avoid prohibiting trigger upgrades and other common firearm components.<\/p>\n

Thanks for helping out, Stephen.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

But Kopel, a law professor and policy analyst at the Cato Institute, also expressed the opinion that a bump stock ban would NOT violate the Second Amendment, since the Supreme Court ruled in its landmark Heller decision — defining the Second Amendment to include self-defense — that machine guns are \u201cnot protected items.\u201d<\/p>\n

While the court has never \u2013- not in Miller in 1939, not in Heller in 2008 -\u2013 said it\u2019s OK to totally ban machine guns, those decisions do indeed allow a dangerous amount of leeway for more unconstitutional victim disarmament (\u201cgun control.\u201d)<\/p>\n

Quite properly throwing out Washington, D.C.\u2019s handgun ban as a blatant violation of the Second Amendment, the high court in 2008 (according to the \u201csyllabus\u201d of the Heller decision, District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, No. 07\u2013290, prepared by the court itself to summarize its ruling in plain English), confirmed \u201cThe Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. . . . The Amendment\u2019s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause\u2019s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.\u201d<\/p>\n

Further, the court found \u201cThe \u2018militia\u2019 comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.\u201d (Note the sneaky use of the past tense.) \u201cThe Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government (sic) would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens\u2019 militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens\u2019 militia would be preserved.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

ONLY A RIGHT TO OWN MUZZLE-LOADERS?<\/strong><\/p>\n

So far so good. But the Heller court -\u2013 being comprised of lawyers who are also political appointees, after all -\u2013 then rushed to insist they didn\u2019t mean that ALL gun control should now be thrown out. No, no.<\/p>\n

Soothingly, they start by saying laws restricting weapons ownership by idiots and lunatics could still be enforced. Fine — few would argue with that.<\/p>\n

But of course those are only the opening notes of a siren song that goes on to argue the 1939 decision United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, \u201cdoes not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use at the time . . . for lawful purposes.\u201d<\/p>\n

And, of course, machine guns were not \u201cin common use\u201d in 1787.<\/p>\n

This may be where Professor Koppel gets his idea that the court failed to \u201cprotect\u201d machine guns.
\nBut even if that\u2019s what the black-robed lawyers said, the \u201cin common use at the time\u201d doctrine is unsustainable, even ridiculous.<\/p>\n

Does the First Amendment \u201cfreedom of the press\u201d protect only those newspapers that still print on 18th-century hand-cranked presses? Of course not. Not only has it been extended to journals printed on high-speed electric presses unknown in 1787, it\u2019s even presumed to cover radio and television stations. Surely no one contends those methods of broadcasting information and opinion were \u201cin common use\u201d in 1787.<\/p>\n

Does the Constitution allow the Congress to fund only a wind-powered Navy, since steamships were unknown in 1787? Of course not.<\/p>\n

With Jefferson safely away in Paris, the dominant Hamiltonians at the Constitutional Convention came up with a charter for a vastly stronger, expansionist, and tax-hungry central government which shocked many Americans. The anti-federalists, including Patrick Henry, organized. The Hamiltonians were obliged to promise their skeptics a Bill of Rights and to spend considerable time offering assurances.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Peruse pp. 66-69 of another book by Stephen Halbrook, \u201cThat Every Man Be Armed.\u201d Federalist after Federalist vowed their proposed new government could never impose tyranny on these shores \u201cwhile there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights\u201d (Hamilton, Federalist No. 29), that any encroachments on our liberties by the new government \u201cwould be opposed (by) a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands\u201d (Madison, Federalist No. 46).<\/p>\n

\u201cWho are the militia?\u201d asked Tench Coxe, friend of Madison and prominent Federalist, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788. \u201cAre they not ourselves. . . . Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read it again: \u201cevery other terrible instrument of the soldier.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

When General Gage sent Col. Francis Smith marching to Lexington and Concord, he was far more interested in seizing cannon, powder and ball than in mere hunting rifles. Clearly Washington\u2019s militia of the 1770s had and used cannon, including cannon firing grapeshot. So by what delegated power does the federal government today block me from owning modern versions of such weapons? They were \u201cin common use at the time,\u201d weren\u2019t they? And a cannon firing cannister or grape could do a lot more damage than a modest modern \u201cbump stock.\u201d<\/p>\n

If the armed forces -\u2014 or the armed, black-clad police SWAT teams who are more likely to break down our doors, these days -\u2014 have any legitimate power to wield all their terrible weapons, where did they get it? In America, the government has no powers except those delegated to it by the people, and the people can delegate no power they do not have. Thus, if federal forces have any legitimate power to wield \u201cevery terrible instrument of the soldier,\u201d it must follow that we the voters had and retain that same power — the power to arm ourselves as the effective MODERN militia which is \u201cnecessary to the security of a FREE state.\u201d<\/p>\n

If newer technologies render the old, unconstitutional laws out of date, the answer is not to continually \u201crevise and update,\u201d but to finally breathe a sigh of relief, and repeal them. <\/p>\n

Vin Suprynowicz was for 20 years a columnist and editorial writer for the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal. He blogs at www.vinsuprynowicz.com<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Senate Judiciary committee heard testimony Dec. 8 on a proposal to try to outlaw \u201cbump stocks\u201d — devices that allow light, modern, semi-automatic rifles to fire at rates similar to machine pistols. As usual when bizarre new \u201cgun control\u201d proposals surface, the victim-disarmament gang hope to capitalize on a recent mass shooting by someone […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[89,8,12,78],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-2018-election","category-2nd-amendment","category-common-defense","category-individual-liberty"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pWqFl-1Ep","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6349","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6349"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6349\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6365,"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6349\/revisions\/6365"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}