Joe Biden and his leftist cronies must hate the current make up of the Supreme Court of the United States. After all, the current (somewhat) conservative majority on the court has handed Biden and other gun control fanatics some ugly setbacks.
Like today’s story.
Now, like all gun control policies pushed by those on the anti-2A side of the political spectrum, the court case that we’re talking about today shouldn’t have even needed to happen. After all, the push to ban firearms and firearms accessories and equipment is clearly unconstitutional.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that. It just takes a plain reading of the text (and a willingness not to go through mental gymnastics to try to make the text say what you want it to say, even if it doesn’t).
It also doesn’t take a genius to understand that gun control doesn’t save lives but actually costs lives. Coming to that conclusion only takes a willingness to actually look at the statistics in context and to acknowledge reality.
But, clearly, reading and acknowledging reality aren’t something that anti-2A activists are willing to do.
So, what is the big court win that we’re celebrating today? Chris Enloe gives us the details:
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a federal ban on bump stocks.
In December 2018, the Trump administration outlawed bump stocks via an ATF rule that declared the device to be a “machine gun,” thus making bump stocks illegal under federal law. The case, Garland v. Cargill, made its way to the Supreme Court after a U.S. district court initially ruled in the government’s favor, a decision with which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.
The central issue in the case is whether a bump stock device fits the definition of “machine gun.”
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority because bump stock devices do not meet the statutory definition of a “machine gun as defined in 26 U.S.C §5845(b).”
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion.
Using the statutory definition of a machine gun — any firearm capable of firing “automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger” — Thomas explained why a bump stock doesn’t satisfy the definition.
Thankfully, Justice Thomas, unlike those on the other side of this decision, actually knows how to read and think.
And I’m certainly glad to have him on the court to bring some sanity and rationality to those on the other side of the political spectrum on the court who desperately want to make the law do what they feel is the right thing to do. Whether it legally can or not.
Hopefully, we’ll see more of these types of wins coming out way from the court soon.