Conservative Index Add
pagetitle

Thursday, February 27th, 2020Last Update: Tuesday, February 11th, 2020 09:38:01 AM

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

By: David Deming

In the aftermath of the October 1, 2017, mass shooting in Las Vegas, the US Justice Department has proposed a new rule reclassifying “bump stocks” as machine guns. President Trump has condemned bump stocks, and even the National Rifle Association has called for “additional regulations” on “devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles.” The new rule would require that all existing bump stocks either be turned in or destroyed without compensation.

I don’t own any bump stocks. I have no desire to own a bump stock. I think they’re asinine. It’s the sort of device that an eighteen-year-old male with more testosterone than common sense thinks is really cool. Nevertheless, the proposed ban on bump stocks ought to be resisted. It opens the door to outright confiscation of all semi-automatic firearms by executive order. This is the very sort of abuse that initiated the American Revolution.

Installation of a bump stock does not transform a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun. A machine gun is defined by statutory law (26 U. S. C. 5845b) to be “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” There is no bump stock in which this happens. Bump stocks merely facilitate rapid fire. Every time a gun with a bump stock is discharged, there is a single function of the trigger. That is why on ten separate occasions, between 2008 and 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms issued letters concluding that bump stocks “did not qualify as machineguns” and were perfectly legal to manufacture, sell and possess.

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the executive branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, they can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It’s the realization of Dianne Feinstein’s dream of “turn ‘em all in.” If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional “taking.” The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, King James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, “this is giving up the question.” Single-handedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and they won. Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all “private individual ownership of firearms” recently argued that “even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands.” He’s right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any “infringement” of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years we have been subjected to The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

Should we surrender on bump stocks? No. Hell no. As a speaker at the recent gun control march on Washington DC admitted, “when they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.” Appeasement only encourages more depredation and encroachment. Never give up your weapons!

David Deming is professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, and author of the series Science and Technology in World History.

About David Deming

David Deming is a geophysicist and professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma. His book, Black & White: Politically Incorrect Essays on Politics, Culture, Science, Religion, Energy and Environment, is available for purchase on Amazon.com

Other Articles By David Deming

Why an OU Presidency Failed

David Boren was a hard act to follow. But James Galloglys appointment as President of the...

Is the University of Oklahoma a Racist Institution?

The University of Oklahoma is apparently becoming infamous as a hotbed of racism. In 2015, a video...

A Tale of Two Professors

In the Fall 2018 issue of the Oklahoma Constitution, I related the persecution of OU law professor...

Conservative Christians Unwelcome at OU

The nation was transfixed by the smear campaign launched against judge Brett Kavanaugh. In a...

OU President Galloglys Challenge

When he assumed office on July 1, OU President James Gallogly found a full plate. But foremost among...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

In the aftermath of the October 1, 2017, mass shooting in Las Vegas, the US Justice Department has...

A Three-Point Plan for Reforming Higher Education in Oklahoma

Over the past few years the higher education establishment in Oklahoma has repeatedly warned that...

Other Constitution Columnists

John Michener

Equal Justice Demands passage of the Abolition of Abortion in Oklahoma Act
The natural law of God which says that we shall not murder innocent human beings transcends...

Bill Graves

Judge Balkman Right in Not Ordering a Jury Trial In Opioid Case
The Oklahoma Constitution newspaper in its Fall, 2019 edition took Judge Thad Balkman to task for a...

Shane Smith

Oklahomans Deserve the Full Story Surrounding Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness
Oklahomans Deserve the Full Story Surrounding Vaccine Safety and EffectivenessThere are serious...

Linda Murphy

ACT Test is Common Core
Since the 2015-2016 school year, Oklahoma public high school students have been taking ACT tests...

Tim Bakamjian

Rating Oklahomas Members of the U.S. House
The 116th U.S. Congressional Session is more than halfway complete, having begun in January, 2019....

Charlie Meadows

Governor Stitt One Year after He Took Office, the Good and the Bad
People that know I am involved in politics and government continually ask my opinion about the job...

Theodore King

The Federal Page for Winter 2020
An Impeachment MemoryOn Saturday, December 19, 1998 the House of Representatives impeached President...

Steve Byas

Oklahoma Economy in Hands of State Supreme Court
The decision for the state of Oklahoma in its opioid nuisance lawsuit against drug manufacturer...

Ron McWhirter

From the General Manager
From the General ManagerLooks like there is well over a dimes worth of difference between the two...

In The News

Constitution Staff

Gross Receipts Indicate Economic Expansion Slowing
Oklahoma Gross Receipts to the Treasury for calendar year 2019 paint the picture of a sound, but...

Constitution Staff

Status of Petitions Filed to Place State Questions on Ballot
A numbers of petitions to secure a place on the Oklahoma ballot in 2020 have been filed with the...

Constitution Staff

Oklahoma Presidential Primary Election
Oklahoma is among 14 states holding Presidential Primary Elections on March 3, 2020 in what is known...

Constitution Staff

Legislature Completes Bill Filing
On January 16, the two chambers of the Oklahoma Legislature completed bill filing for the second...

Constitution Columnists

John Michener

Equal Justice Demands passage of the Abolition of Abortion in Oklahoma Act
The natural law of God which says that we shall not murder innocent human beings transcends...

Bill Graves

Judge Balkman Right in Not Ordering a Jury Trial In Opioid Case
The Oklahoma Constitution newspaper in its Fall, 2019 edition took Judge Thad Balkman to task for a...

Shane Smith

Oklahomans Deserve the Full Story Surrounding Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness
Oklahomans Deserve the Full Story Surrounding Vaccine Safety and EffectivenessThere are serious...

© 2001 - 2009 The Oklahoma Constitution, all rights reserved.
Contact the Oklahoma Constitution by calling 405-366-1125 or emailing okconsti@aol.com
Content Management System (CMS) provided by WebTeks CMS.