The bill that is ostensibly designed to ban bump-stock devices is gaining traction in the House of Representatives, thanks to the bipartisan group of legislators who are working on it. However, the bill is written in a terribly ambiguous way, that one could read into the text an effective ban on all semi-automatic weapons.
Late last week, I wrote about how the bill’s licentiously ambiguous language can be construed to mean that any combination of parts that is designed to make the rifle fire at a higher rate would become illegal. That means new trigger groups, bolt-carrier groups, gas blocks, charging handles, bolt release, mag release, etc. could fall under the bill’s language because the ambiguity (and that’s by design).
Rather than specifically targeting bump-stocks, the gun-grabbers made the language to be as expansive as possible, so that all sorts of things can be read into the language. Rather than letting the text speak for itself, by providing specific things that are clearly and properly promulgated, the bill is written with the explicit purpose of expanding their power over us, and providing themselves any sort of legal avenue possible to come after anything we do with our firearms.
In fact, it’s so bad that the language may even effectively prohibit all semi-automatic firearms, as Sean Davis discusses at The Federalist.
“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.
The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.
With that in mind, no one should be surprised that’s the case. If you are surprised, you’re not paying attention.
The gun-grabbers will do anything possible to take your right to bear arms. They will use any loophole, any little obscure thing to attack you and your self-defense rights. They simply do not care if it’s unconstitutional, if you are innocent, or if it will do anything to stop more mass shootings.
They. Do. Not. Care.
One of the other issues that Sean Davis discussed was the fact that there are no grandfathering provisions included in the bill. Even if the enforcement agencies only targeted bump-stocks, there is not an enforcement method that does not run afoul of the prohibition of ex pos facto laws in Article I section ix of the Constitution, as I discussed last week.
It is because of that clause of the Constitution that all-out confiscation measures are doubly problematic for gun-grabbers; they cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and they cannot make laws that make a certain action retroactively illegal.
Possession of the devices would be illegal 90 days after the bill became law. Even if one had purchased the device legally, it would then become illegal to possess. The only way to legitimately enforce this law is by confiscation, by finding out sales records, searching those who have bought the devices. It’s simply a matter of fact.
But it just gets worse as one looks at the language of the bill. While the bill advocates for an explicitly unconstitutional ex post facto law, the language also enables one to read into it whatever they want regarding devices that enhance the rate of fire on a given firearm.
But alas, possession of the device will become illegal if the bill passes, even if the device was bought legally. Would there be just compensation if the feds mandate confiscation of these devices, as per the Fifth Amendment?
Don’t count on it; like I stated before, they do not care. They will do whatever possible to take away your guns. Though they have not yet, don’t doubt for a second that they will if given any chance whatsoever.
This bill is that chance. Do not let them take advantage of it.