Conservative Index Add

Saturday, October 20th, 2018Last Update: Tuesday, July 31st, 2018 11:05:57 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.

Other Stories From Spring 2018 Issue

Oklahoma State Legislators Rated

Constitution Staff
The Oklahoma Constitution presents the 40th annual Oklahoma Conservative Index, rating our state...

Abortion: There Is No Silver Bullet

Tony Lauinger
The right to life is a God-given right, and the lives of unborn children should be protected by law....

Christians and Government

Steve Byas
When I read the words of the Apostle Paul, in Romans 13:1-5, penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, its meaning is very clear to me. As Christians, our principal priority is to win the lost to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

The Teacher Strike

Steve Byas
It was called a walkout, or perhaps even a protest, but make no mistake about it, it was...

A Cornett However...

Richard Engle
I was at an event and got stuck talking to a musician. I am not musically inclined, so to make conversation, I asked him about the difference between a trumpet and a cornet. Knowing me he responded, A Trump-ette is likely to be conservative, a Cornett however...

Ending Abortion Is Possible by Ending Pro-life Policies

Randy Brogdon
Since 1973 after the Supreme Court opinion Roe v Wade declared that abortion of an unborn baby was a...

My Criteria for Voting on Legislative Proposals

Rep. Jason Murphey
Consider the following statement one might hear if they stay around the capitol very long: If...

Voter Guide for Republican Gubernatorial Primary

John Michener
After forty-five years of electing pro-life politicians who have promised to fight abortion, we find...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

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

Have Republican Lawmakers Been Suckered

Charlie Meadows
Since the elections of last November, most Republican lawmakers have been regurgitating the mantra...

New OU President Gallogly: We will not have waste on campus.

Brandon Dutcher
James Gallogly has been selected as the next president of the University of Oklahoma. Oklahoma...

Medical Marijuana State Question on June Ballot

Constitution Staff
There will be one state question on the June 26 primary election ballot. State Question 788 was the...

State Question 788 brings 420 to the 46th State

Andrew K. Boyle
Finding Virtue in the Unvirtuous:State Question 788 brings 420 to the 46th stateState Question...

The Federal Page for Spring 2018

Theodore King
Jim Bridenstine, NASA AdministratorCongratulations to Congressman Jim Bridenstine, who was final...

Letters to the Editor for Spring 2018

Constitution Staff
A Time of TroubleI can remember talking to an old man in my community about the trends he saw ...

In The News

Constitution Staff

Races for Congress
The U.S. Congress is composed of two chambers. Senators serve six-year terms with only a third of...

Constitution Staff

Statewide Secondary Offices
In addition to the governors office, a host of secondary statewide offices, and one seat for the...

Constitution Staff

Race for Governor Continues
Mary Fallin was prohibited by term-limits from seeking a third four-year term in 2018. With the seat...

Constitution Staff

Medical Marijuana Approved by Voters
There was only one state question on the June 26 primary election ballot, and it was approved by...

Constitution Staff

Oklahoma State Legislators Rated
The Oklahoma Constitution presents the 40th annual Oklahoma Conservative Index, rating our state...

Constitution Columnists

Brandon Dutcher

What Type of School Would Oklahomans Select?
Leaders in the public-education community often point out (correctly) that the vast majority of...

Richard Engle

A Few Modest Proposals
As candidates for office, from statewide to state house, search for votes, they might want an idea...

Andrew K. Boyle

Oklahoma Pot in a Nation of Nazis
Polemic prose concerning political discourse abounds at present, in the most bizarre terms. It plays...

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