PRESIDENT TRUMP OVERSTEPPED HIS AUTHORITY IN BANNING BUMP STOCKS.

PART ONE

THE PRETEXT FOR TRUMP’S CALL FOR A BAN ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES.

Following the devastating, unconscionable attack by the maniac, Stephen Paddock, on innocent concertgoers, attending a concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, on the evening of October 1, 2017, the gun grabbers wasted little time in turning their attention on what they depicted as the salient culprit of the carnage: a little device called a “bump stock.” It is a device that investigators found attached to semiautomatic rifles Paddock used in his murderous assault.

Antigun groups and antigun politicians immediately called for a ban on the device. But, oddly and sadly, it is President Donald Trump, the seemingly indefatigable champion of the Second Amendment—not the Democratic Party leadership—who gave the gun grabbers what they want: a ban on “bump stocks.”

DONALD TRUMP MAY ACT RASHLY ON SOME MATTERS AND AVOID REPERCUSSIONS; NOT SO, WHEN HE BLATANTLY ATTACKS THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been an early and avid supporter of Trump’s bid for the U.S. Presidency—first during his campaign for the Republican Party nomination, and then during the turbulent first two years in Office, as he was buffeted and roiled on all sides by various factions that sought and still seek to destroy his Presidency. It is alarming, though, when Trump seems to disregard those who support him. Trump had made several promises to the American electorate. Among the most important he promised to build “a wall,” an effective physical structure to keep the multitude of illegal aliens from cavalierly crossing our Nation’s borders, and audaciously claiming the same rights, liberties, and protections that accrue only to American citizens. Trump realizes now, a bit late in the day, that his thoughts of a second term in Office, in 2020, will be undone if he fails to deliver on that oft repeated promise. Just as importantly, Trump made abundantly clear, during his campaign, that he is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. But, what has Trump done to merit his supporters’ continued devotion? So far, two years into his four-year term in Office, we see nothing concrete.

Trump normally “trumpets” his actions, consistent with the importance of, and his belief in, Governmental transparency. That’s a good thing and to be applauded. It is something his predecessor in Office, Barack Obama, said he would do but rarely if ever did, preferring to cloak his own actions in secrecy. The insidious, reprehensible “Operation Fast and Furious” is a case in point; an oblique attempt to undermine the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. But, as for the architects of the policy, neither the Attorney General—at the time, Eric Halder—nor President Obama, was ever called to account for it. Yet, it is Donald Trump now, not Barack Obama, who has deviously and insidiously undermined the Second Amendment, and he is doing so through an aggressive, unconscionable, unconstitutional, unilateral executive act.

Remember what Trump said about national concealed handgun carry?

“The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.” ~ Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Were these just vacuous words, delivered merely to appease supporters at a singular moment in time, and then to be dispensed with once the U.S. Presidency had been secured and when political expediency seemingly required? Apparently, so. After the Parkland, Florida tragedy, the Washington Examiner reported that,

“President Trump told Republicans on Wednesday they should not include a measure that allows people with concealed carry permits in one state to carry across state lines in a comprehensive gun bill.

‘I think that maybe that bill will one day pass, but it should pass separate,’ Trump said during a bipartisan meeting at the White House. “If you’re going to put concealed carry between states into this bill, we’re talking about a whole new ball game. I’m with you, but let it be a separate bill.”

The President weaseled, giving only lukewarm support for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. Obviously this wasn’t a high priority for him. Is it, then, any surprise that, apart from a push by the Republican controlled House in 2017—evidently in spite of the President, not because of him—Congressional action ultimately failed to deliver? Congress got the message. Since preservation and strengthening of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is apparently a low priority for the U.S. President, it was a low priority for Congress—certainly for the Republican-controlled Senate.

A full Roll-Call vote on the Senate Floor was necessary even if the Senate failed to secure 60 votes necessary for passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation since the American public would know who, among both Democrats and Republicans, voted in favor of the measure and those who did not; those Senators, then, who support our sacred Second Amendment right and those who, clearly, do not. 

But, Mitch McConnell never called for a Floor vote, though he could have done so. We will remember McConnell’s disservice to the American people for failing to hold a full Senate Floor vote. And we will remember Trump for failing to make national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation a priority goal. Republicans controlled the Congress—both Houses—along with the U.S. Presidency, from 2016 through 2018. Republicans have now lost the U.S. House of Representatives. The Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms took a backseat to both health care and taxes. It should not have, but it did. 

We face a Democratic Party majority-controlled House whose leadership has a decidedly and decisively different, and ominous agenda in store for the American people. It is a safe bet that Gun control and the general weakening of the Second Amendment will not be secondary issues for the Democratic Party leadership once they assume control of the House on January 3, 2019—unlike strengthening the Second Amendment was, obviously and unfortunately, a secondary issue for Republicans.*

The Arbalest Quarrel has written several articles on this critical matter, posting those articles on our website; and on Ammoland Shooting Sports News; and on “The Truth About Guns.” Ammoland posted our latest one, titled, “National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity – Last Chance to Act,” on November 27, 2018. In that article, we urged Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, to call for a Senate Floor vote on the House he could have done so. There was time before the year-end adjournment. If the Senate did clear the 60 vote threshold, the bill could have been sent immediately to President Trump for his signature. And Trump would have had to sign it even if he were reluctant to do so. For, it would have been, as he insisted, in his remarks to Republicans, that it must be “a separate bill,” subsumed in no other Congressional bill, as it was a separate bill. But, now, we will never know. The bill that passed the House, the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” 115 H.R. 38, will automatically die—as unfinished business of the old Congress—once the new Congress commences work on January 3, 2019.

___________________________________________________________

PART TWO

TRUMP IGNORES HIS PLEDGE TO THOSE OF US WHO SUPPORTED HIM; CAPITULATING COMPLETELY TO THE ANTIGUN CROWD, ONCE HE CALLED FOR A BAN ON BUMP STOCKS.

As if the Republican controlled Senate’s failure to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation and President Trump’s failure to push forward a pro-Second Amendment agenda during his first two years in Office weren’t bad enough—a serious failure of omission on the part of both the U.S. Senate and the President—Trump’s ban on “bump stocks”—an act of commission—is even worse. By foolishly, impetuously, acting to ban “bump stocks,” the President demonstrates a dangerous naïvety and ineptitude, along with a disturbingly blithe lack of concern for the well-being of the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, inviolate right of the American  people to keep and bear arms. Trump is obviously oblivious to the deleterious impact his unilateral action shall have—not simply may have—on the Second Amendment itself.

President Trump’s failure to cajole Congress to action, to strengthen our most cherished and important right, is unacceptable. That failure deserves our condemnation. But undermining our most cherished right is alarming and unforgivable. That deserves our lasting contempt. With the radical Left urging Democratic Party House members to impeach Trump, upon issuance of the Special Counsel’s, Robert Mueller’s, report that is due out at any time now, the President can ill afford to antagonize his own base; but Trump has done just that with his flagrant attack on the Second Amendment.

Trump should have left the matter of bump stocks to Congress. Congress, acting through its Article 1 legislative power, can, conceivably, lawfully, take such action to ban them, if it sought to do so, assuming—a big “if”—that the law, depending on the matter of its statutory construction, does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But it is not for the President to take that action upon himself under any set of circumstances. We have a system of checks and balances in our Country, and for good reason.

Congress makes the law. That power is within the province of Congress, not the President. The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the laws Congress enacts. Under our Constitution, the President has no authority to make binding law, in lieu of Congress. Unlike Great Britain and Australia, the Chief Executive has no authority to self-execute laws. The President does not serve as both Chief Executive and "Legislator in Chief."

We have seen how Obama has shown a marked, carefree proclivity to ignore the federal Government’s system of “checks and balances” that the founders of our Republic wisely conceived of and assiduously placed into our Constitution. As Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, makes crystal clear, it is the province of Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Obama, as President, and, no less a lawyer and academician, knows this. Yet, that did not prevent him from unlawfully promulgating and implementing his infamous, illegal “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA), policy, along with the concomitant mess it left for his successor, President Trump. 

What was Obama’s motive for DACA? As he says, as reported to the Leftist media echo chamber, CNN:  “. . . for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill. That bill never came. . . . “Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question.” Obama proselytizes to Americans, talking down to us as if we were children, suggesting that it is he, Obama,“the Great Father,” who shall teach us all what we ostensibly need to know about law, politics, and morality too, audaciously exclaiming that, as Congress didn’t give Obama what he wants—he—Barack Obama, will make law himself!

Obama’s remarks are a textbook example of propaganda, disseminated to the public by an insincere Press. It is bombastic, simplistic, perfunctory rhetoric; absolute drivel. Obama certainly knows it; but so should the Press. This smug, duplicitous attitude on the part of both Obama and the Press serves to make Obama’s remarks and the mainstream media’s reporting of them all the more diabolical and reprehensible.

One salient, critical duty of the Chief Executive of the Nation, set down in Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The laws the President is duty-bound to faithfully execute are the laws Congress enacts. The President has no power to issue personal edicts, suggesting they have the force of Congressional law when in fact they don’t; and cannot ever have. As Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes abundantly and absolutely clear: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is nothing in Article 1 or in any other Article of the U.S. Constitution reciting that legislative powers, of some sort or another, also vest in the President. Such powers do not invest in the President; only in Congress.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION CONSISTS OF FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPTS; NOT SIMPLE PLATITUDES.

Trump, as with Obama before him, has begun to demonstrate a disturbing propensity to ignore precepts of the U.S. Constitution, when he wishes to do so, unmoved by the dictates of either the Constitution or his conscience. His unilateral action banning bump stocks was a calculated move. It is obvious why he took this action. He evidently felt the general public supported it—more of those in favor of it than not. He caved to public pressure to deliver something to the public, because of the worst mass shooting ever to occur in our Nation and an unthinkable tragedy that happened to occur on his watch. That may appear as reason enough to act, by some, but Trump should not have fallen prey to the frenzy of the moment, and with such apparent alacrity, abandon, and smug self-assurance.

The continued existence of the natural, fundamental rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are not properly to be left to public whim, anyway, and never have been. Public opinion is easily manipulated and ever changeable. The founders of our Republic didn’t intend for the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people to be weakened by mere heat and rancor of a given moment in time. That ought to be clear enough to most Americans if they stop to consider this. It should be clear enough to Congress. And it should be clear enough to the President, too; but apparently it wasn’t. And, having taken the action to ban bump stocks devices, President Trump did nothing to make this Nation safer. Having bowed to political pressure--something he is, often and admirably enough, not ordinarily inclined to do, but did so in this instance--he reneged on a salient campaign promise he made to millions of Americans, namely that he, like they, fervently and reverently hold the Nation’s Second Amendment in the highest regard, and that he will do his best to preserve and strengthen it. Yet, a ban on bump stock devices does no such thing. Rather, it makes a mockery of Trump’s promise to the American people. Worse, taking the action he did to usurp Congressional authority and prerogative to make law, Trump did much more than simply undermine a campaign pledge; he undermined the very Constitution he swore an oath to preserve and to protect. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution makes plain that,

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

Trump does not faithfully execute the office of President of the United States by making up his own law as he goes. He doesn’t preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States when he takes upon himself--as did his predecessor Barack Obama--the role the framers of the Constitution reserved alone to Congress, namely the authority to make law. And, Trump certainly doesn't preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, when he undermines the fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people as codified in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. 

Whether operating through grandiose self-delusion or blatant deceit, a Chief Executive, who fails to adhere to the limitations on his authority, as our Constitution dictates and mandates, significantly threatens the continued well-being of a free Republic. Under no set of circumstances can suspension or abrogation of our Constitution ever be justified. 

_______________________________________________________________________

PART THREE

TRUMP’S UNILATERAL ACTION, BANNING BUMP STOCKS, IS UNLAWFUL.

Although Trump could have and should have left the matter of “bump stocks” to Congress, Trump’s unilateral action, banning civilian ownership and possession of bump stocks is unlawful. That isn’t an open question. The answer to that question, under Constitutional law, is clear and categorical. Trump cannot lawfully do so. But, he took that action anyway. The danger we now face, given Trump’s rash action, goes well beyond the relative merit or utility of bump stocks, themselves.

Trump’s action calls into immediate question the import of Congressional legislation and the weight to be given to U.S. Supreme Court pronouncements on matters of law. If Trump’s action withstands legal challenge and scrutiny—and David Codrea’s article posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News points to several formal complaints that have been recently been filed contesting the constitutionality of the ban—the ‘rule of law’ becomes mere shallow and hollow rhetoric; legislation becomes mere ad hoc artifice, subject to the vicissitudes of fate; and the Bill of Rights loses its inviolability and immutability.

THE DOJ-ATF RULE BANNING “BUMP STOCKS” IS PATENTLY UNLAWFUL.

Two major websites, Ammoland Shooting Sports News and The Truth About Guns, have posted several fine articles on the issue of bump stocks. The Arbalest Quarrel provides its own take on this subject, including an analysis of the law regarding administrative decision-making.

We reach a disturbing but irrefutable conclusion: if the Courts do not strike down Trump’s action, we will continue to see the inexorable whittling away of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, leading inevitably to the demise of civilian ownership and possession of all semiautomatic firearms, not simply to the demise of firearms pejoratively called “assault weapons.”

We begin our analysis with the language of Trump’s Memorandum, issued on February 20, 2018. The Memorandum is titled “Application of the Definition of Machine gun to ‘Bump Fire’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” 3 CFR Memorandum of 2/20/18. This Executive Office Memorandum placed the Justice Department on notice of the President’s intent to promulgate a rule criminalizing possession of bump stock devices--all of them, regardless of the nature of operation of any one manufacturer's version of the device--and further ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to promulgate a rule, banning those devices. The Memorandum directed to the Attorney General, and signed by Donald Trump, reads:

“After the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017, I asked my Administration to fully review how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates bump fire stocks and similar devices.

Although the Obama Administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns.

Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of ‘machine gun’ under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017. Public comment concluded on January 25, 2018, with the Department of Justice receiving over 100,000 comments.

Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.

Although I desire swift and decisive action, I remain committed to the rule of law and to the procedures the law prescribes. Doing this the right way will ensure that the resulting regulation is workable and effective and leaves no loopholes for criminals to exploit. I would ask that you keep me regularly apprised of your progress.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.”

[signed] Donald Trump

____________________________________

There are four points to ponder here. First, through this Memorandum, Trump attempts to make law, not simply execute laws Congress enacted because Congress hasn’t enacted a law banning bump stocks. So there is no law for the President to faithfully execute under Article 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. His remark—“I remain committed to the rule of law”—is what we hear all the time from Democrats. It is a remark he expects the public to accept on blind faith. Politicians make use of it often enough. But, the remark invariably comes across as hollow, flaccid, and pathetic; a useless appendage, demonstrating a lack of conviction at its very utterance, as the action taken belies the seeming veracity of the sentiment underlying it. 

The fact remains: absent express Congressional authorization the Executive Branch of Government cannot lawfully promulgate rules to effectuate the will of Congress if there is no will of Congress to effectuate. And, there is none here.Trump has blatantly exceeded his authority under the Constitution.

Second, the Memorandum—a directive to the DOJ—is logically inconsistent. Trump says, at the outset, he simply seeks “further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns,” but then makes clear that it isn’t mere clarification he seeks at all. He tells the DOJ “to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.”  Trump is kidding no one. He is illegally attempting to promulgate law.

Third, the Memorandum calls for a drastic measure. There is nothing in the Memorandum allowing for the grandfathering of bump stocks in the hands of American citizens. Consider: even the infamous federal assault weapons ban act of 1994 (that expired in 2004) made abundantly clear it did not apply to possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon a citizen happened to lawfully possess before enactment of the Congressional legislation.

The new ATF Rule, though, is far more ambitious than even Congressional legislation that banned new purchases of “assault weapons.” For, under the ATF Rule, Americans who fail to surrender bump stocks or who otherwise fail to render them inoperable are subject to criminal prosecution. There is no exception, and no grandfathering of devices that, before implementation of the Rule, had been lawfully purchased.

Fourth, Trump takes the position—as is clear from the language of the Memorandum—that he can get around the Statutory legal hurdle by claiming to operate within  it; but he does so by tortuously toying with the definition of ‘machine gun’ to include ‘bump stocks.’ Trump does not succeed and he is wrong in his endeavor in attempting to do so. He is unlawfully expanding upon and redefining the clear, concise and precise definition of 'machine gun' as codified by Congress in Federal Statute. Further, Trump's attempt to get around the hurdle of a clear concept of ‘machine gun’ is unnerving. It would have been better—although still legally indefensible--had he simply sought to ban “bump stocks” outright, without the semantic convolutions, gyrations, and machinations.

Trump attempts to convince the public that "bump stock devices" do convert semiautomatic firearms into machine guns. Trump simply pretends to be on a sound legal, logical, and grammatical footing. He isn't. The reason Trump contrives to win over the public is plain. Congress has specifically defined the expression, 'machine gun,'  in Statute; and it has defined the expression explicitly and unambiguously.

In 26 USCS § 5845, titled "definitions," “the term ‘machine gun’ means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” 

If ever the language of a Congressional Statute were straightforward and readily understood by a firearm's expert or by a lay person, 26 USCS § 5845 is such a Statute. If an agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government can undermine Federal law so blatantly, as Trump attempts to do so here, then no Federal Statute is safe from abrogation by Executive edict by those in Government who would dare trifle with our Nation's Constitution and laws.

Unless, the concept of ‘bump stock’ falls within the meaning of ‘machine gun,’—and it doesn’t—the Justice Department cannot lawfully promulgate a rule that extends the legal definition beyond the parameters mandated by Congressional Statute. Yet, it has dared to do just that, even as it insists that it has not. Trump has audaciously ordered DOJ to promulgate an illegal rule, and the DOJ, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has obliged.

THE NEW ATF RULE: A CATEGORICAL BAN ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES

In the Federal Register, 83 FR 13442, the DOJ, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has proposed a rule change to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically, 27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479.

The proposed Rule, reads: “The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that ‘bump fire’ stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are "machine guns" as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machine guns if this Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.”

The ATF has now finalized the proposed rule, amending the first sentence to read:

“The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). . . .”

As a final Agency Rule, it is ripe for judicial review, if challenged; and it is rightfully being challenged.

THE ATF’S REASONING ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES IS FLAWED.

The critical problem with the ATF Rule is this: bump stocks are not machine guns; nor are they accessories for machine guns; and saying they are machine guns, as the ATF categorically and brazenly does say, doesn’t make them so. The rule seemingly complies with federal Statute by iterating the critical point that “. . . such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger." But, the assertion is false, and the Rule must be struck down on that ground alone. The Rule is also a noxious affront to the natural, fundamental, and unalienable right etched in stone in the Second Amendment. The ATF Rule cannot be allowed to stand without doing a disservice to the purport of our Nation’s Bill of Rights.

Without amnesty for those who lawfully possessed bump stock devices, prior to implementation of the new DOJ-ATF Rule, 83 FR 13442, a wholesale ban on bump stocks place those of us who possess the devices in clear legal jeopardy. Keep in mind the last line of the Rule: Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.” This retrospective application to existing lawful owners of bump stock devices is outrageous, and, apart from other serious Constitutional issues attendant to 83 FR 13442, the Rule may also amount to a violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which says clearly and succinctly: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”  The Arbalest Quarrel will look into a possible violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 in a future article.

_______________________________________________________

PART FOUR

THE ATF’S ASSERTION THAT BUMP STOCKS CONVERT SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES INTO MACHINE GUNS IS BOTH LOGICALLY AND LEGALLY FAULTY.

Let’s take a moment to reassess.

What is a ‘bump stock,’ really? Who invented it? How long has it been on the market? Why the uproar over it? Is it really the awful object that antigun zealots and the President, too, claim it is? And, most importantly, does a ban on bump stocks place those of us who possess semiautomatic weapons--millions of law-abiding American citizens--in legal jeopardy?

A LITTLE HISTORY ON BUMP STOCKS—

Who Invented the “Bump Stock?”

Four days, after the Las Vegas concert tragedy, The New York Times looked into this mechanical device called a “bump stock,” reporting, with typical tabloid flourish:

“Gun enthusiasts looking for an extra thrill have long found makeshift ways to replicate the exhilaration of using an automatic weapon — the thrill of the noise and the jolt of rapid-fire rounds — while bypassing the legal hassle and expense of getting one.

They contrived devices using pieces of wood, belt loops and sometimes even rubber bands, to mimic the speed of a fully automatic weapon — even if it meant sacrificing accuracy.

Then came Jeremiah Cottle with an answer. A Texas farm boy turned Air Force veteran, he figured he could do better. He sank $120,000 of his savings into the development of a high-end bump stock, a device that harnessed a rifle’s recoil to fire hundreds of rounds a minute.

He began selling bump stocks in 2010 with the help of his wife and grandparents in Moran, Tex., his small hometown of fewer than 300 residents. His company, Slide Fire Solutions, won approval from federal firearms regulators, and the business moved from a portable building that had once been a dog kennel into a much larger space on the Cottle family farm. Sales exceeded $10 million and 35,000 units in the first year.”

HOW DOES A BUMP STOCK OPERATE?

Antigun groups, along with the Press provide their impressions of “bump stocks”—offering descriptions from the deceptive and simplistic to the florid and patently absurd.

Following up on the October 2017 story, the NY Times, on February 18, 2018 said this says about the device’s operation:

“A ‘bump stock’ replaces a rifle’s standard stock, which is the part held against the shoulder. It frees the weapon to slide back and forth rapidly, harnessing the energy from the kickback shooters feel when the weapon fires. The stock “bumps” back and forth between the shooter’s shoulder and trigger finger, causing the rifle to rapidly fire again and again. The shooter holds his or her trigger finger in place, while maintaining forward pressure on the barrel and backward pressure on the pistol grip while firing.”

The NY Times' animation aptly illustrates that one shot, and one shot only, is fired through a single  pull of the trigger. A successive pull of the trigger is required each time in order to initiate an additional shot. 

The Progressive weblog “Trace,” says, “A bump stock is a foot-long piece of plastic capable of transforming a semiautomatic rifle into a weapon functionally indistinguishable from a machine gun. That means a gun fitted with a bump stock can fire up to 800 rounds per minute.” 

This is more than simple hyperbole. The problem with the remark is that the expression, 'machine gun' is defined in federal statute by manner of operation, and not, as the weblog Trace, argues, by rate of fire. Antigun proponents do not, however, appear to concern themselves over, or allow themselves to be constrained by, niceties of law. They are only interested in political results. 

Not to be outdone the NY Times or by the weblog, Trace, Gabby Gifford’s antigun group chimed,  

“In the absence of immediate action by Congress, I urge ATF to finalize its proposed rule clarifying that bump fire stocks, along with other “conversion devices” that enable semiautomatic weapons to mimic automatic fire, qualify as “machine guns” under the National Firearms Act. And then Congress must act as well—to ensure that manufacturers cannot continue to endanger public safety by designing devices that imitate machine guns and subvert the law. The continued presence of these dangerous devices puts all of our communities at risk, and both Congress and ATF must take action quickly to address this threat."

Whether modification of a semiautomatic rifle, incorporating a bump stock, serves "to mimic automatic fire" is, from the legal standpoint, absolutely irrelevant because this kind of modification does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. One pull of the trigger yields one shot and one shot only, not successive shots.

These remarks by Gifford’s organization are purposely incendiary and patently ridiculous. Indeed, even the progressive website, “Vox,” citing an AP News report—albeit claiming that bump stocks offer a "way around the law [pertaining to machine guns]"—felt compelled to admit, if only reluctantly, that bump stock modifications to semiautomatic rifles do not convert those rifles into machine guns.

“The device basically replaces the gun’s shoulder rest, with a “support step” that covers the trigger opening. By holding the pistol grip with one hand and pushing forward on the barrel with the other, the shooter’s finger comes in contact with the trigger. The recoil causes the gun to buck back and forth, “bumping” the trigger.

Technically, that means the finger is pulling the trigger for each round fired, keeping the weapon a legal semi-automatic.”

One pull of the trigger yields one shot and one shot only, not successive shots. So, whether modification of a semiautomatic rifle, incorporating a bump stock, serves to "mimic" automatic fire, as Gifford's antigun group, and others like it, claim, is, from the legal standpoint, absolutely irrelevant because this kind of modification does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. And, there’s the rub!

EXPERT OPINION EXISTS TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT BUMP STOCKS MODIFICATIONS TO SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES DO NOT CONVERT THOSE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES INTO MACHINE GUNS, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968 OR THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

One individual or Company (name and address redacted) contacted the ATF, requesting a formal opinion on whether its device, an “AR-15 Type ‘Bump Fire Stock,’” fell within the federal legal definition of a ‘machine gun’, that “would be regulated by the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) or the National Firearms Act (NFA).”

A firearms’ expert, Michael R. Curtis, Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch, reviewed the device. He responded, on April 17, 2017, to the query (about six months before Paddock went on his rampage in Las Vegas). In principal part, Michael Curtis said this,

“Your bump fire grip device consists of the following:

One AR-style pistol grip that it attached to and adjustable butt stock by a flat metal bar bent to contour to the buttstock. The pistol grip has two plastic pieces attached by small screws, one is the extension for resting your finger on while firing and the other is a shield to prevent the pistol grip from pinching  the  grip  fingers  of  the  firing  hand.

Your stock is designed to allow an AR-type semiautomatic rifle mounted to it to reciprocate back and forth in a linear motion. The absence of an accelerator spring or similar component in the submitted device prevents it from operating automatically.  When operated, forward pressure must be applied with the support hand to the forward hand guard fore-end of the AR-type rifle mounted to  your stock, bringing  the  receiver assembly  forward  to  a  point  where  the  trigger  can be pulled by the firing hand. If sufficient forward pressure is not applied to the hand guard with the support hand, the rifle can be fired in a conventional, semiautomatic manner since the reciprocation of the receiver assembly is eliminated.

The  FTISB  examination of the  submitted device indicates that if as a shot is fired   and a suU/dent[?] amount of pressure is applied to the hand guard/gripping surface with the shooter's support hand—the AR-type rifle assembly will come forward until the trigger re-contacts the Shooter’s stationary firing-hand trigger finger: Re-contacting allows the firing of a subsequent shot. In this manner, the shooter pulls the receiver assembly forward to fire each shot, each succeeding shot firing with a  single trigger function. . . .

Moreover; we should point out that the addition of an accelerator spring or any other non-manual source of energy which allows this device to operate automatically will result in the manufacture of a ‘machine gun’ as defined in the NFA, 5845(b).”

_____________________________________________

The juxtaposition of an expert’s opinion on bump stock devices and the wording of the ATF Rule stipulating an outright ban on “bump stock” devices, aptly illustrates the critical differences between well-reasoned opinion on the one hand written by a firearms’ expert, Michael Curtis, and, on the other hand, simplistic verbiage, reflected in the new ATF Rule, crafted, no doubt, by people who are not firearms’ experts. Further, the opinion of Michael Curtis is facially neutral; the ATF Rule, politically motivated as it obviously is, is only seemingly facially neutral.

Michael Curtis considers the technical attributes of and operation of bump stocks, calmly and rationally. His findings demonstrate his technical knowledge, and he draws a conclusion as to the legality of the particular device submitted to him, on the basis of the law, as enacted. In the law, as enacted, Congress defines the expression, ‘machine gun.’ That definition happens to accord with industry use of the expression. There is no embellishment. But that is not what we see in the language of the ATF Rule, as promulgated. The drafters of the Rule were only interested in giving the President what he asked for; what he wanted; what he demanded from them; and they did so.

Those who drafted the ATF Rule clearly did not bother to consider the technical intricacies of “bump stock” operation. The Rule is nothing more than a simplistic, ill-informed, technically deficient, politically motivated and mandated edict, posing as a well-reasoned administrative pronouncement, ostensibly having the force of agency law. It is not. Those who crafted the ATF Rule on bump stock devices made no attempt to distinguish among any of them. Their mandate was to create a Rule to ban them—all of them; anything that might conceivably resemble them. The drafters of this agency Rule, insidiously contrived to craft a rule that, by outward appearance—to those who nothing about firearms’ operation—may seem impressive. But, as is often the case, appearances are deceptive, and that is the case here. Those who crafted this Rule had their "marching orders."  They conspired to give President Trump what he wanted; what he asked for; what he demanded of them. They connived, and contrived, and conspired, when crafting their Rule, to place bump stock devices within the orbit of a firearm's accessory that converts a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. If the deception succeeds politically, that is all that matters to the President, and to them; but, as the Rule is logically and legally flawed, it cannot withstand Constitutional scrutiny by the Judiciary, and must be struck down.

Were this Rule to escape Judicial inquiry unscathed, it will invite misuse of Congressional Statute at every turn—merely to achieve a political end, desired by some. Those who crafted this ludicrous Rule meant to deceive the public. Hopefully, the Courts will not allow themselves to be similarly deceived.       

_______________________________________________________________

PART FIVE

APART FROM TRUMP’S RASH, INCORRIGIBLE ACTION, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAS CONGRESS DONE TO CURB POSSESSION OF “BUMP STOCKS?”

Curiously, Congress did attempt action to ban “bump stocks,” albeit unsuccessfully. On October 31, 2017, about one month after Paddock’s murderous assault on innocent Americans, Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), sponsored a bill, called, “Closing the Bump-Stock Loophole Act,” 115 H.R. 4168.

The bill had co-sponsors among both Republicans and Democrats. The stated purpose of the bill was “. . . to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat in the same manner as a machine gun any bump fire stock, or any other devices designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.”

The bill, if enacted into law would amend Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of the United States Code (USCS) of 1986:

IN GENERAL. Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking "and (8)" and inserting the following: "(8) a reciprocating stock, or any other device which is designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon; and (9)".

(b)  Semiautomatic Weapon.—and  Section 5845 [26 USCS § 5845] of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"(n) Semiautomatic Weapon.— The term 'semiautomatic weapon' means any repeating weapon that—

"(1); utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and

"(2);requires a separate function of the trigger to fire each cartridge."

The bill went nowhere. But, interestingly, the bill, if enacted, would not have redefined or expanded upon the definition of ‘machine gun,’ in 26 USCS § 5845—something the ATF Rule rashly does—but instead would include a definition for ‘semiautomatic weapon,’ which 26 USCS § 5845, at present, doesn’t have. The bill would then ban devices “. . . designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.” It would treat bump stocks, “in the same manner as a machine gun,” true, as the language of the bill so states; but that isn’t the same thing as saying that “bump stocks” are “machine guns.” That is an important difference, as the definition of ‘machine gun’ is codified in federal statute. There was nothing in the proposed bill to suggest a Congressional intention to amend or to expand upon the statutory [26 USCS § 5845] definition of ‘machine gun.’

Congress itself obviously had a marked reluctance “to play” with its own definitions, and avoided doing so—a reservation that Trump obviously doesn’t have, when he wholeheartedly took upon himself, the role of both Chief Executive and “Legislator in Chief.”

Still, the Congressional bill was a bad idea at the get-go. Had it passed, antigun zealots could have, and likely would have, used the new law to argue that any new development in semiautomatic weapon technology, as a matter of efficiency, accelerates substantially the rate of fire of the semiautomatic weapon and, so, must be banned. After all, Antigun proponents see little if any difference between semiautomatic firearm on the one hand and machine guns, submachine guns, and selective fire weapons on the other, anyway. To these zealots all semiautomatic firearms are “weapons of war,” having no practical civilian use, asserting they—ultimately all of them—should be banned outright.

Antigun proponents have worked for decades to make their goal a reality; and they continue to work toward this end—all with the avid monetary and organizational assistance of wealthy globalists who seek to subordinate our Constitution, our system of laws, and our jurisprudence to a “one-size fits all” set of international norms. If they succeed in that endeavor, the independence and sovereignty of individual nation states will come to a screeching, halt and catastrophic end. All Western nations will all be corralled into a single, centralized and uniform political, social, cultural, economic, and financial system of governance. The EU is the test bed and the basic framework for this system. Even as the citizenry of the individual nations within the EU, realizing that their nations are moving inexorably to dissolution and are beginning to resist that effort, it may be too late for them. But, it isn’t, as yet, too late for us—so long as our Bill of Rights, and, especially, are Second Amendment remains intact. The DOJ-ATF “Bump Stock” Rule is not a neutral rule. If allowed to stand, unchallenged, it can and will have a devastating impact on the continued well-being of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

THE ATF “BUMP STOCK” RULE THAT WE NOW HAVE IS WORSE THAN THE CONGRESSIONAL BILL WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN.

As bad as Representative Fitzpatrick’s bill  [“Closing the Bump-Stock Loophole Act,” 115 H.R. 4168], was, if enacted, the new ATF Rule, as now finalized, is far worse. Indeed, even Congress was reluctant to subsume the concept of ‘semiautomatic weapon’ into the concept of ‘machine gun.’ President Trump has no such reservations. Trump’s Memo to the DOJ suggests that either he has given little thought to the matter or couldn’t care less about the legal consequences of his actions had he thought about the matter at all. The ATF filled with antigun fanatics, delivered for Trump, with unsurprising, characteristic exuberance.

The ATF has laid the groundwork for subsuming semiautomatic weaponry into the category of ‘machine guns,’ even though a clear bright line between machine guns and semiautomatic firearms exists in Congressional Statute. It is a line that Congress has carefully delineated, and it is one which Congress is loath to tinker with. Yet this sharp, distinction between semiautomatic firearms on the one hand and machine guns on the other is one that Trump has cavalierly, and literally, at the stroke of a pen, erased.

This ATF Rule, if allowed to stand, would severely weaken the Second Amendment. Hopefully, the Gun owners of America, that is challenging the constitutionality of the ATF Rule will prevail. GOA must prevail for the good of the Nation; for the sake of the American citizenry; and for the continued well-being of our Nation’s inviolate rights and liberties.

______________________________________________________

PART SIX

THE ATF BUMP STOCK RULE DEMONSTRATES THE DANGERS INHERENT IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.

AGENCY RULES MUST BE SCRUTINIZED CAREFULLY BY THE COURTS FOR THEY HAVE A TENDENCY TO OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.

The American public has historically given little thought to the relationship between Congressional legislation and Administrative action. That must change. The new ATF Rule makes clear that the public must become aware of the intricacies of Governmental action lest the American people lose their sacred fundamental rights and liberties. The American people should have learned long ago of the danger posed to a free Republic through the insinuation of so-called “elites” into the political process. What ensues is oft, appropriately referred to, as “the tyranny of experts.”

How has this come about? It has come about due, paradoxically, to the manner in which our Federal Government operates. The only true “checks and balances” in our Nation are those that rest in the enumerated rights and liberties of the American people, and singularly in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If we lose that basic, inherent right, we have lost everything. That is not hyperbole. That is fact.

Congress makes law, yes. But, in faithfully executing Congressional statute, the Executive Branch must turn Congressional legislation into operational rules. That is the job of Executive agencies.

Congressional legislation provides the mandate through which agencies act. Agencies promulgate rules, allowing for implementation of law. However, that mandate isn’t open-ended. Congressional legislation establishes the parameters beyond which the Executive Branch must not venture. Yet, with disturbing regularity, we see the President, through the Executive agencies he presides over, overstepping his Constitutional authority.

In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court established the standard of Court review of agency interpretation of statute. The case is abstruse. The majority of Americans probably never heard of it. Yet, among legal scholars, the U.S Supreme Court Chevron case is likely the most often cited case. Hundreds of academic articles have been written about it. Hundreds more will probably be written. And our case law is legion with references to it.

In Chevron, the high Court wrestled with the amount of discretion that federal Courts—the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government—should give to administrative agencies when those agencies interpret law to promulgate operational rules through which Congressional acts are effectuated. The question for the Courts turns on whether statutory language is ambiguous. If the language is ambiguous, Courts will defer to the agencies—the experts—to resolve the ambiguity, unless the Courts determine the agency’s interpretation is unreasonable. But, then, the Court is itself interpreting statute: hence the conundrum for the Courts.

But that is not the case here, with the ATF Bump Stock Rule, and that is because the definition of ‘machine gun,’ in Congressional Statute, is clear and unambiguous, certainly as unambiguous as our common language, English, can be. The ATF Rule is particularly exasperating as it blatantly ignores the Congressional Statutory dictate in order to promulgate a rule to cohere to a political goal—thereby making a mockery of our system of laws and the very concept of the “Rule of Law” that politicians love to cite but rarely, if ever, actually adhere to.

The ATF Rule, as promulgated, sets forth that bump stock modifications of semiautomatic rifles convert semiautomatic rifles into machine guns because only one pull of the trigger is required to initiate multiple firing of the weapon. But, that statement is either true or it is false.

If true, then the semiautomatic firearm is, in fact, a machine gun. If not, then, the semiautomatic firearm remains a semiautomatic firearm because it is semiautomatic in operation. Rate of fire is irrelevant. Michael Curtis, supra, points out that, in the absence of an “accelerator spring,” a bump stock device—in its usual form (and keep in mind that the ATF Rule fails to consider and appreciate that bump stocks may have different configurations and operate in different ways)—requires one trigger pull for each successive shot. Performance is not a factor, as NRA clearly and correctly points out; the manner of operation is the only factor that comes into play.

Thus, unless Congress enacts legislation to redefine the expression, ‘machine gun,’—redefining it in a way that is contrary to industry use—the President of the United States, through the DOJ-ATF is not lawfully permitted to do redefine 'machine gun' on its own, which, it audaciously has done, even as the language in the Rule says otherwise. The DOJ-ATF action amounts to ad hoc rule-making; ad hoc rule-making, subject to the whims of political pressure, but presumptuously finalized as enforceable law. The DOJ-ATF Rule is nothing more than illegal Executive Branch edict. Its presence makes a mockery of law. It is a travesty. If allowed to stand, it amounts to the usurpation of our entire system of laws and justice, and legal jurisprudence.

____________________________________________________________________

PART SEVEN

THE NEW ATF RULE BANNING “BUMP STOCKS” PORTENDS A TOTAL BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

If allowed to stand, this ATF Rule dangerously undermines the Second Amendment because the Rule unlawfully conflates semiautomatic firearms and machine guns. If rapidity of fire becomes the de facto if tacit but clearly salient factor and new rule-made—as opposed to Congressional enacted—definition of ‘machine gun,’ which presently defines the expression,' machine gun,' in terms of manner of operation, not performance, then all semiautomatic firearms will inevitably and invariably be subsumed into the nomenclature of ‘machine gun.’ Indeed, the mainstream media—comprising stooges and political hacks posing as journalists who know nothing about firearms’ operations and who have no desire to gain such knowledge—merely echoes the sentiments of antigun zealots. The mainstream media routinely argues that no appreciable difference exists between machine guns and semiautomatic firearms, anyway. The running narrative of these organizations is directed to motivating the public to demand, of Congress, the annihilation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The purpose of these “news” organizations has nothing whatsoever to do with news reporting. The Press, today, delivers propaganda masked as news. There is no appreciable distinction anymore between what appears in the Op-Ed sections of these “news” publications or in  what is purportedly presented as “real” news, neutrally presented.

We have seen how antigun zealots create, through the artifice of the ‘assault weapon,’ a useful fiction through which semiautomatic firearms can be ostensibly lawfully banned. President Trump has, consciously or not, but certainly ill-advisedly and uncritically, created, through the DOJ-ATF Bump Stock Rule, a re-branding of semiautomatic firearm as machine gun based, essentially, on performance, albeit deliberately creating vagueness as to whether "bump stocks" necessitate one-trigger pull for every shot or multiple shots with one trigger pull in an attempt to "get around" the lack of any vagueness or ambiguity in the statutory definition of 'machine gun.'

If Trump and the DOJ-ATF are allowed to get away with this subterfuge, then it is but a small step from a total ban on “bump stocks” to a total ban on all semiautomatic firearms, since rate of fire—utilized as the salient and subjective basis for elimination of firearms in the hands of civilians—will now provide the “ammunition” antigun zealots can and will latch onto in their unyielding zeal to continue to weaken the Second Amendment.And it is Trump, now, not Schumer or Pelosi, who has given them a vehicle they can and will use to destroy at once the citizen’s best means of self-defense and destroy, as well, the one truly capable defense in the citizen’s possession, to prevent or at least deter the onset of tyranny.

__________________________________________

*As reported in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, John Crump, NRA instructor, has launched a petition drive to urge President Trump to reverse his position on Bump Stocks. A reversal of Trump’s position requires the rescission of the ATF Bump Stock Rule, which Trump should be able to accomplish. As Chief Executive, the President is sole head of all Departments, bureaus, and agencies of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Trump ordered creation of the rule banning bump stocks. He should be able to demand the rescission of it. Trump can and should assert that, after further consideration, he realizes his Memorandum to the DOJ, requesting a Rule banning bump stocks, was issued in error with little foresight; that the Memorandum he issued is administratively ill-advised, logically flawed, and legally unsupportable, and that, upon reflection, the President realizes the DOJ-ATF Rule does not serve the best interests of the American public, and, further, that the President realizes the Rule is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Arbalest Quarrel supports John Crump’s worthy effort. The founders of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog have added their names to the petition. We urge all Americans who, like us, cherish and exalt our Bill of Rights, and especially our Second Amendment, to do the same. At the moment only a few thousand individuals have signed the petition. That is unacceptable. The petition calls for 100,000 signatures. There are tens of millions of guns owners. Where are their voices? They have not been heard.

Remember this: Nothing serves better to destroy our sacred rights and liberties than public apathy. If those among the public—deluded though they be—are encouraged to yell louder for ever more “gun control” measures than do those who continue to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then Congress will deliver the head of the Second Amendment, on a platter, to the destroyers of our sacred rights. And, the framers of our Constitution and founders of our Free Republic will have given their blood in vain. It is up to you!

Let us avoid the ill-fated national concealed handgun carry reciprocity measure. With the Democrats reclaiming control of the House of Representatives on January 3, 2019, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Democratic Party leadership will be doing everything in its power to weaken the Second Amendment; and we can expect a flurry of anti-Second Amendment bills in the first few months when Congress commences business. We don’t need President Trump assisting them in this effort, whether he is doing so consciously or not.

Once you sign the petition, we also urge you contact the White House. Contact phone numbers are:

1-202-456-1414; (Switchboard)

1-202-456-1111; (Comments)

You may also write to the President. Information may be found at the White House website:

________________________________________________________

Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

H.R. 38: CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2017: A REAL POSSIBILITY OR A WILL-O'-THE-WISP?

BUT WHO WOULD PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT IF NOT THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES?

{Antifederalist, founder of our free Republic, Patrick Henry’s prescient argument, given before the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, recognizing the need for an armed citizenry as the great bulwark against a tyrannical government. Note: the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified a few short years later, in December 1791}.“But, Sir, I have strong cause of apprehension: In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts absolutely taken away. How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone-not sufficiently secured in criminal-this best privilege is gone: But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our Representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands: I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny: Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism. Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition: And those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly: While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom. My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants: It is urged by some gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength, an army, and the militia of the States: This is an idea extremely ridiculous: Gentlemen cannot be earnest. This acquisition will trample on our fallen liberty: Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe: Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England-a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland-an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? . . . . The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited: Exclusive power of Legislation in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square; and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies: Those garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress also in another part of this plan: They will therefore act as they think proper: All power will be in their own possession: You cannot force them to receive their punishment: Of what service would militia be to you, when most probably you will not have a single musket in the State; for as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them. Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power, ‘To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ By this, Sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the States can do neither, this power being exclusively given to Congress: The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous: So that this pretended little remains of power left to the States may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: Nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shewn, that a very small minority may prevent it; and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression: Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there even an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly? Was there even an instance?” Speech of Patrick Henry (quoted at length, passim); Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention, 5 June 1788  in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Jonathon Elliot ed., 1907).

IMAGINE PATRICK HENRY GIVING THE ABOVE SPEECH TO THE 115TH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. DO YOU NOT THINK THAT PATRICK HENRY WOULD SUPPORT NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION? WHAT, DO YOU SUPPOSE, WOULD BE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REACTION TO PATRICK HENRY'S SPEECH? IMAGINE DEMOCRATS AND CENTRIST REPUBLICANS TELLING PATRICK HENRY THAT HIS WORDS, HIS PERCEPTIONS, HIS LOVE FOR THE SACRED RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF AMERICANS ARE NO LONGER RELEVANT! ALL THE WORSE, THEN, FOR WE, AMERICANS, OF THIS "BRAVE" NEW WORLD ORDER.

National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity, also referred to as "Constitutional Carry," is an issue of great importance to Americans who hold dear the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, many members of Congress—and need we daresay, most members of Congress—do not share the same sensibility and enthusiasm toward this sacred, sacrosanct, and inviolate right that the founders of our free Republic, not least of all Patrick Henry, felt important enough to enshrine in the most critical component of our Constitution: Our Bill of Rights. In fact, it is apparent that many members of Congress—virtually all Democrats, along with a good many centrist Republicans—feel that the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment should be whittled away to nothingness; and, by their way of thinking, good riddance, grounded on the reason, often given, and fervently believed, that the Second Amendment has long outlived its usefulness, its purpose, its very significance. They have, accordingly, passed legislation to accomplish that very goal, enacting numerous laws to destroy the free exercise of our most sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

FIVE CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS THAT HAVE HARMED THE AMERICAN CITIZEN’S EXERCISE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

The comprehensive National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) did significant, substantial, perhaps even irreparable damage to the right codified in the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. But, lest one be under the illusion that anti-Second Amendment Congressional legislators were confident that the NFA and GCA amount to the veritable endgame in weakening the Second Amendment, Congress was far from done. Congress has since amended the GCA, further beleaguering the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We witness the Firearms Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA)*; the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993; and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (AWB) (now, fortunately, expired).

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION

Congressional Republicans attempted to push back against the NFA, GCA and against an onslaught of further anti-Second Amendment bills, presented by Congressional Democrats, by drafting bills of their own that, if enacted, would strengthen the Second Amendment in accordance with the intent of the framers of it. From 2011 to date Republicans in the House and Senate introduced thirteen bills, any one of which, if enacted, would allow individuals, not under disability, who have a valid license to carry a handgun concealed in one State to lawfully carry a concealed handgun in every other State. Where are they now? Four of the bills failed in Committee. The other nine are stalled in Committee. The Arbalest Quarrel has written on this dismal state of affairs in the article, titled, “Second Amendment Handgun Carry Reciprocity Among the Several States—A Right Denied!”, posted on September 29, 2017.  None appear to be going anywhere soon.Although the basic mechanics of how a bill becomes law is no secret, and readily discernible, still, nonetheless, the inner workings of the U.S. Congress is inscrutable. One thing, though, is clear. No bill comes to the Floor of the House or Senate, for open hearing, debate and vote, without the backing of House and Senate leadership. So, if the Senate Majority Leader, at the moment, Senator Mitch McConnell, and if the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, at the moment, Representative Paul Ryan, do not wish to give a bill so much as an even chance of passage, then the bill will die in committee or, otherwise, the bill will be cast into a committee limbo. Such is the fate of most bills. Such is the fate of all national concealed handgun carry bills, to date.

H.R. 38: CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2017

H.R. 38 is merely the latest of the national concealed handgun carry reciprocity bills to be introduced in Congress. The purpose of the bill is set forth thus: “A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.”In full, H.R. 38 sets forth:SECTION 1.  SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017".SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS. (a)  IN GENERAL. – Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:  "§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms "(a)  Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that- "(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or "(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes. "(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that- "(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or "(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. "(c) (1)  A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section. "(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b). "(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney's fee. "(d) (1)  A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief. "(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney's fee. "(e)  In subsection (a): "(1) The term 'identification document' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals. "(2) The term 'handgun' includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine. "(f) (1)  A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun. "(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public: "(A) A unit of the National Park System. "(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. "(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. "(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. "(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.". (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. – The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following: "926D.  Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms."(c)  SEVERABILITY. – Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (d)  EFFECTIVE DATE. – The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Representative Richard Hudson, R-NC, introduced the bill in the House of Representatives on January 3, 2017. There were 84 Cosponsors: 83 Republicans and, curiously, one Democrat. The lone democrat who cosponsored the bill is Henry Cuellar, D-TX.

WHO SIGNED ON AS COSPONSORS OF THE H.R. 38? **

Sponsor and original Cosponsors of H.R. 38  as of the date of the bill's introduction in the U.S. House of Representatives, on 01/03/2017:Hudson, Richard (R-NC) - Sponsor; Lamborn, Doug (R-CO) - Cosponsor; Chabot, Steve (R-OH) - Cosponsor; Smith, Lamar S. (R-TX) -Cosponsor; LaMalfa, Doug (R-CA) - Cosponsor; Graves, Tom (R-GA) - Cosponsor; Yoder, Kevin W. (R-KS) - Cosponsor; Huizenga, Bill (R-MI) - Cosponsor; Cole, Tom (R-OK) - Cosponsor; Duncan, Jeff D. (R-SC) - Cosponsor; Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX) - Cosponsor; Diaz-Balart, Mario (R-FL) - Cosponsor; King, Steve (R-IA) - Cosponsor; Franks, Trent (R-AZ) - Cosponsor; Emmer, Tom (R-MN) -Cosponsor; Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) - Cosponsor; Walorski, Jackie (R-IN) - Cosponsor; Smith, Jason (R-MO) - Cosponsor; Cook, Paul (R-CA) -Cosponsor; Buchanan, Vern (R-FL) - Cosponsor; Olson, Peter Graham (R-TX) - Cosponsor; Harper, Gregg (R-MS) - Cosponsor; Gaetz, Matt (R-FL) - Cosponsor; Hartzler, Vicky (R-MO) - Cosponsor; Johnson, Bill (R-OH) - Cosponsor; Farenthold, R. Blake (R-TX) -Cosponsor; Brooks, Mo (R-AL) - Cosponsor; Kinzinger, Adam (R-IL) - Cosponsor; DesJarlais, Scott Eugene (R-TN) - Cosponsor; Cramer, Kevin (R-ND) - Cosponsor; Holding, George B. (R-NC) - Cosponsor; Meadows, Mark (R-NC) - Cosponsor; Mullin, Markwayne (R-OK) - Cosponsor; Pittenger, Robert (R-NC) - Cosponsor; Wagner, Ann (R-MO) - Cosponsor; Williams, Roger (R-TX) - Cosponsor; Sanford, Marshall C. (R-SC) - Cosponsor; Brat, Dave (R-VA) - Cosponsor; Buck, Ken (R-CO) -Cosponsor; Katko, John M. (R-NY) - Cosponsor; Newhouse, Dan (R-WA) - Cosponsor; Ratcliffe, John Lee (R-TX) - Cosponsor; Walker, Mark (R-NC) - Cosponsor; Westerman, Bruce (R-AR) – Cosponsor

Added Cosponsors, on January 4, 2017:
Bishop (R)-UT	Rouzer (R)-NC	Barr (R)-KY
Added Cosponsors on January 5, 2017:
Bost (R)-IL	Harris (R)-MD	Grothman (R)-WI
Shimkus (R)-IL	Gibbs (R)-OH	Perry (R)-PA
Knight (R)-CA	Comstock (R)-VA	Kelly (R)-PA
Bucshon (R)-IN	Cheney (R)-WY	Taylor (R)-VA
Added Cosponsors, on January 6, 2017:
Sessions (R)-TX	Posey (R)-FL	Gohmert (R)-TX
Comer (R)-KY
Added Cosponsors, on January 9, 2017:
Black (R)-TN	Pearce (R)-NM	Gowdy (R)-SC
Davis (R)-IL	Kelly (R)-MS
Added Cosponsors, on January 10, 2017:
Wilson (R)-SC	Young (R)-IA	Budd (R)-NC
Rooney (R)-FL
Added Cosponsors, on January 11, 2017:
Hultgren (R)-IL	Rokita (R)-IN	Banks (R)-IN
Added Cosponsors, on January 12, 2017:
Young (R)-AK	Thompson (R)-PA	Johnson (R)-LA
Mitchell (R)-MI
Added Cosponsors, on January 13, 2017:
Bishop (R)-MI	Denham (R)-CA	Byrne (R)-AL
Walberg (R)-MI	Barletta (R)-PA	Collins (R)-NY

{Congress has lost its way. Congress does not serve the interests of the American people. But, if it is not the American people whom Congress serves, then whom is it that Congress does serve? Congress must be reminded that its duty is to serve the American people. Those Legislators who fail in their duty to the American people must be voted out of Office.Let your U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative know how you feel about your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Phone (202) 225-3121. It is a fast and easy process; and a critical one. Only through your active participation, can we help secure our Second Amendment.} ________________________________________*Supporters of FOPA might argue that it operates as a positive step forward, toward strengthening the Second Amendment and they might point to support garnered from NRA that supported various aspects of FOPA. But, “Despite its magnanimous sounding title, and notwithstanding some of its more generous provisions, the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) also contained a Trojan Horse. While the NFA severely restricted possession of fully automatic weapons, the 1986 FOPA, signed into law by President Reagan, made possession of any fully automatic firearm which was manufactured before 1986 a felony, with certain narrow exceptions. Given that possession of fully automatic firearms was already heavily regulated by the NFA, the immediate impact of the FOPA was minimal. However, as 1986 fades into the past, the law has begun to manifest its twofold effect. First, it insures that even fully registered fully automatic firearms in private possession gradually become more and more obsolete. They are now twenty years old. Eventually, they will appear as quaint as the flintlocks that some faux-originalists claim are the only weapons protected under the Framers' intent. Second, as older weapons are gradually decommissioned, fewer of these weapons are available for civilian ownership, reducing the collective firepower of the militia and increasing the price of those full automatics still on the market. The eventual effect of the statute will be a de facto ban on civilian possession of all full automatics, except for a few museum pieces.” And, fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 are banned from the civilian market altogether. “Do Federal Firearms Laws Violate the Second Amendment by Disarming the Militia?”, 10 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 469, 484 (Spring 2006), by John-Peter Lund, A.B. 1997, M.A. 1999, University of California at Berkeley; J.D. 2006, University of Texas. See also, “Symposium: Gun Control and the Second Amendment: Developments and Controversies in the Wake of District of Columbia v. Heller And McDonald v. Chicago: Article: The Great Gun Control War of the Twentieth Century—And Its Lessons For Gun Laws Today, 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1527, 1574 (October 2012), by David B. Kopel, Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver, Colorado. Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. Kopel is the author of fourteen books and over eighty scholarly journal articles, including the first law school textbook on the Second Amendment: Nicholas J. Johnson, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary & Michael P. O'Shea, Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy (Aspen Publishers, 2012). This article is a revised and extended version of a portion of the textbook written by Kopel. See David Kopel's website. “Because of an amendment added on the floor of the House, FOPA also banned the sale of new machine guns (manufactured after the date that FOPA became law, May 19, 1986) to the public. The NRA successfully challenged the ban in district court, but lost in the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. (The challenge had asked that language allowing the sale of new machine guns ‘under the authority of the United States’ be construed to allow sales that complied with the Federal National Firearms Act of 1934).”** Roger Katz and Stephen D’Andrilli, Co-creators of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog, are regular guests on Lock and Load Radio with Bill Frady. Toward the end of the 6:00 show, that took place this past Thursday evening, October 18, 2017, Bill informed Roger Katz that a listener to the show had contacted Bill through the show’s “Chat Room.” The listener requested a list of all Republican House Members who did not support H.R. 38. Roger explained that he would post an article, responsive to the listener’s request. Stephen and Roger are, accordingly, doing so through this article.Responsive to the listener’s request, be advised that the 115^th Congress has 435 House Members, broken down as follows: 239 Republican House members, 194 Democrats, and two vacancies. Concerning the vacancies, the Honorable Tim Murphy resigned on October 21, 2017, and the Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned on June 30, 2017.  For a list of the names of House and Senate Members, the following websites provide a wealth of information: http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/cong.aspx; https://www.house.gov/; and https://contactsenators.com/party.php?party=republican. Rather than listing the names of those Republican House Members who did not add their names to the list of cosponsors of H.R. 38, Stephen and Roger have listed the names of those who did add their names as cosponsors since the list of cosponsors of the bill was readily ascertainable.It would be unnecessarily labor intensive to list the names of over 150 Republican House Members who did not sign on as cosponsors of the bill, but those individuals who would like to ascertain the names of the Republican House Members who did not add their names as cosponsors to H.R. 38 can readily ascertain who those House Members are by comparing the names of the sponsor and cosponsors of the bill which Roger and Stephen have provided in this article, with those who did not. The web links provided in this article, supra, set forth the names of each House Member. But, keep in mind that, notwithstanding that a House Member adds his or her name as a cosponsor to this bill, or, for that matter, to any other bill, this does not mean the House Member would vote for enactment. A Member of Congress is not required to do so. Similarly, the fact that a House Member did not sign on as a cosponsor of H.R. 38, this does not mean that the House Member would not vote for enactment of H.R. 38 were it to move forward to a full House Floor vote. In fact, many House Members might have cosponsored H.R. 38, knowing full well that its chance of passage, based on what they, and we, have seen of previous similar bills, is slim to nonexistent. Cosponsors of H.R. 38 might, then, wish to create the impression they are fervent supporters of the Second Amendment generally and of national concealed handgun carry legislation particularly, when in fact they are not, knowing that it is highly unlikely that they will ever have to place their honor and integrity on the line as it is highly unlikely—at least at the present time—that H.R. 38 will ever make its way out of Committee, let alone find its way to the House Floor for a full public hearing and debate and, then, on to a full House Floor vote. That is not to say that many--and, probably, or, at least, hopefully all or most--of the cosponsors of H.R. 38 do not in fact strongly support the bill that they have lent their name in support to and that they would not decidedly and definitely like to see passage of the bill in the event, however unlikely it might be, that Representative Paul Ryan, will relent and allow H.R. 38—or any of the other similar national concealed handgun carry reciprocity bills, presently stuck in Committee—to wend its way through Committee and on to the House Floor for full public hearing, debate, and vote. Quite simply, we don't know._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IS THE “MAXIM 50 SUPPRESSED MUZZLELOADER”, MANUFACTURED BY SILENCERCO, LEGAL IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK?

A reader of the Arbalest Quarrel asked us whether New York bans the Maxim 50, manufactured by SilencerCo. To answer this question, we first went to the manufacturer’s website to get a handle on what the Maxim 50 is since the manufacturer’s description of it serves as the basis for legal analysis. The central issue is whether the Maxim 50 is a firearm under Federal and New York law. If the Maxim 50 is construed as a firearm under Federal law, it comes under the purview of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and under the purview of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and, as applicable, under the purview of those Acts as subsequently amended.The manufacturer, SilencerCo, describes the Maxim 50 as an “integrally suppressed muzzleloader.” The manufacturer says:“For the first time since the National Firearms Act (NFA) was created in 1934, civilians can enjoy suppressed shooting in all 50 states with SilencerCo’s latest innovation: the integrally suppressed Maxim 50 muzzleloader. In addition, this product can be purchased right now on the web with no regulation (no 4473, no $200 tax stamp, no photographs, and no fingerprints) and be shipped immediately to the customer with few exceptions.” New York is one of those few exceptions, according to the manufacturer. SilenceCo says a prospective purchaser, residing in New York may still obtain the weapon, but must do so, not directly, through interstate commerce, shipped directly to the purchaser’s home, but, indirectly, through a holder of an FFL.

BUT, IS THE MANUFACTURER’S STATEMENT ACCURATE? CAN A NEW YORK RESIDENT, NOT UNDER DISABILITY, PURCHASE THE MAXIM 50, LAWFULLY, THROUGH A LICENSED NEW YORK GUN DEALER EVEN IF THAT NEW YORK RESIDENT CANNOT TAKE POSSESSION OF THE MAXIM 50 THROUGH THE MANUFACTURER, DIRECTLY?

Can a resident of New York, who wishes to purchase the Maxim 50 obtain it, lawfully, then, through an FFL?To begin to answer this question intelligently, we must first ask what sort of thing the Maxim 50 integrally suppressed muzzleloader is, when viewed under federal law and under New York law.Let us look at the Maxim 50 from the standpoint of Federal law, first. Two federal code sections are critical to our investigation: 26 USCS § 5845 (Definitions) of the United States Code of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle E; Alcohol, Tobacco, And Certain Other Excise Taxes; Chapter 53 Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, And Certain Other Firearms; Subchapter B. General Provisions and Exemptions, Part I. General Provisions; and we look to 18 USCS § 921 (Definitions); Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure; Part I. Crimes; Chapter 44. Firearms. We know that the Maxim 50 is a muzzle loader, since the manufacturer of the product describes it as such, and as the manufacturer further explains its nature, in detail, in the product manual, we can rest assured that the Maxim 50 is, in fact, a muzzle loader. The question for us is whether a muzzle loader is a firearm, under federal law. For, if federal law defines the Maxim 50 as a muzzle loader, then that fact is determinative of whether the device--which, as the manufacturer says comes equipped with an integrally suppressed muzzleloader--falls under federal firearms restrictions. We begin with the assumption that the expressions ‘firearm suppressor’  and ‘firearm silencer’ refer, from a legal standpoint, essentially to the same sort of thing. The term ‘silencer’ may be a misnomer to firearms experts, but, as it is that expression, 'silencer,' that is used in federal law and in New York law, rather than the more appropriate expression, 'firearm suppressor,' we need not quibble about the relative inaccuracy of the expression, 'firearm silencer,' when considering the legality of possession of the device by the average law-abiding American citizen. The firearms expert will understand that, to the legislator and to the police, and to the lawyer, the expressions, ‘firearm silencer,’ and ‘firearm suppressor,’ and ‘integrally suppressed firearm,’ or, as in the instant case, ‘integrally suppressed muzzleloader,’ mean pretty much the same thing in respect to what it is that the component is designed to do.

IS THE MAXIM 50 A FIREARM UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

26 USCS § 5845(a) says that, “The term 'firearm' means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term 'firearm' shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.” 26 USCS § 5845(a). AND,26 USCS § 921(a)(3) says, “The term ‘firearm’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.Through 26 USCS § 5845(a) and 26 USCS § 921(a)(3), it doesn’t appear the Maxim 50 is a “firearm.” But further clarification is necessary. We obtain that clarification in another U.S. Federal Code Section. We ask,

IS THE MAXIM 50 AN ‘ANTIQUE FIREARM’ UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

If the Maxim 50 is an ‘Antique Firearm,” then, under 26 USCS § 5845(a), it is not a ‘Firearm.’ How does federal law define an ‘Antique Firearm?’ The expression ‘Antique Firearm,’ has two definitions. If the Maxim 50 falls under either one of those two definitions, then, the Maxim 50 is an ‘Antique Firearm’ under Federal law.18 USCS § 921(a)(16) says:“The term ‘antique firearm’ means—(A)  any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or(B)  any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica—(i)  is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or(ii)  uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or(C)  any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ‘antique firearm’ shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.”AND,26 USCS § 5845(g) says, “The term 'antique firearm' means any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.”The Maxim 50 is, of course, a weapon manufactured after 1898, so it doesn’t qualify as an ‘antique firearm’ under 26 USCS § 5845(g), but, it is a muzzle loader that does in fact use black powder, according to the manufacturer’s instruction manual. And, if we can infer that the Maxim 50 does not incorporate a “firearm frame or receiver” and that it cannot “be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock or any combination thereof,” then it is not a ‘firearm,’ under 18 USCS § 921(a)(16), and that is sufficient to remove the Maxim 50 from the category of ‘firearm’ under federal law.But, wait a second. Even if the Maxim 50 is an ‘antique firearm’ and, hence, not a ‘firearm’ under federal law, isn’t the Maxim 50 a “silencer?” Yes. BUT, the Maxim 50 isn’t a “firearm silencer.” That fact is crucial. But, how do we know this? We know this because federal law makes clear that, since the Maxim 50 isn't a firearm, under federal law, the Maxim 50 isn’t a “silencer” either, under federal law. Once again,18 USCS § 921(a)(3) says, “The term ‘firearm’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. Since The Maxim 50, as a black powder muzzle loader  with integrally suppressed muzzleloader (silencer), isn't a firearm under federal law, then, by legal implication, the Maxim 50's silencer--more to the point, integrally suppressed muzzleloader--isn't a “firearm silencer,” under federal law, either.But, we still aren’t quite finished with our analysis. We must ask,

IS THE MAXIM 50 DEFINED AS “ANY OTHER WEAPON” UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

But, once again, the answer is, "No." The expression 'Any Other Weapon'--a generic description of 'weapon'--also finds its way in federal law. 26 USCS § 5845(g) says, “The term 'any other weapon' means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.”The Maxim 50 cannot be readily concealed “on the person,” and, indeed, it isn’t designed to be the sort of implement to be capable of being concealed on the person. So, the Maxim 50 is not defined, in federal law as, ‘any other weapon.’So, under federal law, we conclude that the Maxim 50 isn't a firearm and it doesn't fall under restrictions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, or under restrictions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.So, under federal law, the Maxim 50 doesn’t appear to run into problems under federal law.BUT,What about New York law, specifically. Is the Maxim 50, with integrated suppressor, considered a firearm within the jurisdiction of New York?

DOES THE MAXIM 50 COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF NEW YORK GUN CONTROL LAWS?

To some extent New York law follows the dictates of federal law, but New York law has its own twists.

IS THE MAXIM 50 DEFINED AS A FIREARM UNDER NEW YORK LAW?

We look to the Consolidated laws of New York for the answer.Let’s look at some definitions under Article 265 (Firearms and Dangerous Weapons) of the Consolidated Laws of New York. NY CLS Penal § 265.00(2) and (3) of Article 265 provide us with two definitions of importance to us here.“2. ‘Firearm silencer’ means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms.”“3. ‘Firearm’ means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e) an assault weapon. For the purpose of this subdivision the length of the barrel on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or breechlock when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked; the overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore. Firearm does not include an antique firearm.”The Consolidated laws of New York do not, to the best of our information and belief, define an implement that has the characteristics of the Maxim 50. New York law does define the expression, ‘antique firearm,’ but that definition does not track the federal law definitions.NY CLS Penal § 265.00(16) says, “‘Antique firearm’ means: Any unloaded muzzle loading pistol or revolver with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system, or a pistol or revolver which uses fixed cartridges which are no longer available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.” Under New York law the Maxim 50 is a muzzle loading device but it isn’t a pistol or revolver.It would appear, at first glance, that the Maxim 50 doesn’t come under the purview of Article 265 (Firearms and Dangerous Weapons) of the Consolidated Laws of New York. But, on closer inspection, it’s clear that the Maxim 50 does come under the purview of Article 265. Let’s look once again at NY CLS Penal § 265.00(2).“2. ‘Firearm silencer’ means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms.” The expression, ‘firearm silencer’ refers to “any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance . . . to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun. . . .” Pay close attention to the word, ‘gun.’The term, ‘gun,’ is an amorphous concept that can reasonably apply to the Maxim 50. New York law doesn't define the word, 'gun.' It is simply mentioned in New York law. And, we don't see a definition for the word, 'gun,' as such, defined in federal law either. So, we have to go to a common dictionary source to get a handle on the plain meaning of the word. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines the term, ‘gun,’ as ‘a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory.’ The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines, the term, ‘gun,’ as ‘A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.’  Clearly enough, the Maxim 50 is a gun under New York law. Since the Maxim 50 is manufactured with an integrated silencer component--as the manufacturer refers to the Maxim 50 as an integrally suppressed muzzleloader--the Maxim 50 does fall under NY CLS Penal § 265.00(2).The drafters of ‘firearm silencer’ clearly and poignantly intended to make firearm silencers unlawful in New York. Case law makes this point clearer still. The Opinion of the Appellate Court of Albany is insightful and is quoted at length in the 1984 New York case, Oefinger vs. New York State Police, 146 A.D.2d 186, 540 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881.In Oefinger vs. New York State Police, 146 A.D.2d 186, 540 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881, “The Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms denied the gunsmith's request for permission to transfer two machine guns and a firearm silencer to persons who could lawfully possess them in New York. The gunsmith, who was also a dealer, filed an action for a declaratory judgment. The trial court granted the state police's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The court modified the trial court's judgment so as to allow a declaratory judgment because such was designed to allow the adjudication of rights before a wrong took place. Thus, the gunsmith did not need to be in danger of prosecution before a declaratory judgment as to his rights could be entered. The court then declared that the gunsmith could not lawfully possess or dispose of firearm silencers and machine guns.  N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(8), (9) defined a ‘gunsmith’ and a ‘dealer in firearms’ and prescribed the activities in which persons who were duly licensed for those businesses could lawfully engage. Because possession and disposition of a silencer or machine gun were not mentioned in N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00(8), (9), 265.02(2), 265.10(3), they were not permissible.”The Appellate Court of Albany said this about the possession of silencers by either a New York licensed dealer or gunsmith: "Penal Law § 265.00 (8) defines a ‘gunsmith’ and Penal Law § 265.00 (9) defines a ‘dealer in firearms.’ “These definitions specifically prescribe the activities in which those persons or entities who are duly licensed for those businesses under Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) can lawfully engage.  Applying the rule of statutory construction that states expressio unius est exclusio alterius, 'an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded' (Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v City of New York, 41 NY2d 205, 208-209, quoting McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 240).  It follows that inasmuch as subdivisions (8) and (9) of Penal Law § 265.00 contain no reference to firearm silencer possession and disposition by a ‘gunsmith’ or a ‘dealer in firearms,’ such possession and disposition are not permissible (Penal Law § 265.02 [2]; § 265.10 [3]).  We find no merit in plaintiff's contention that Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) provides an exemption for gunsmiths and dealers in firearms from all of the penalties provided by Penal Law article 265. The exemption provided by Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) permits gunsmiths and dealers in firearms to engage only in the activities prescribed in the definitions of those terms in Penal Law § 265.00 (8) and (9), for without such exemption the prescribed activities would be  unlawful. Contrary to plaintiff's claim, however, the exemption cannot be construed to broaden and expand the statutory activities in which a gunsmith or dealer in firearms can lawfully engage.”“By similar reasoning and applying the same statutory rule of construction, a ‘dealer in firearms’ is not authorized to possess or in any other way deal in ‘machine guns’ (Penal Law § 265.02 [2]; § 265.10 [3]).  The definition of ‘firearm’ contained in Penal Law § 265.00 (3) does not include ‘machine guns,’ which are separately defined in Penal Law § 265.00 (1).  Again, contrary to plaintiff's contention, no exemption is provided in Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) for a licensed dealer in firearms to possess or dispose of machine guns to any individual who may lawfully possess them.  The activities of licensed dealers in firearms are limited to pistols or revolvers (Penal Law § 265.00 [9]).  As to licensed gunsmiths, the activities permitted by Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (8) in respect to machine guns applies only if they are the [manufacturers]’ of machine guns. Since plaintiff is not such a ‘manufacturer’ of machine guns, the statute has no application to him. Pursuant to Penal Law § 265.00 (8), a licensed gunsmith may engage in certain activities with respect to machine guns, but disposition is not one of those activities.  Plaintiff's other contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.”Under New York law, as interpreted by the Appellate Court of Albany, licensed dealers and gunsmiths are not permitted to transfer machine guns or silencers. Whether the integrally suppressed muzzleloader (silencer) of the Maxim 50 is integrated into a device that is not construed as a firearm under federal law or New York law is, then, decidedly and decisively legally irrelevant.The Maxim 50 is a “gun” under New York law, and since the suppressor (silencer) is integrated into that gun, it is the Arbalest Quarrel’s educated opinion (albeit, not a formal legal opinion), that the Maxim 50 is illegal in New York.FURTHER NOTE:The Arbalest Quarrel has spoken with one licensed gun dealer in New York, and holder of an FFL, who told us that, under no circumstances, would he accept delivery of the Maxim 50 for anyone. And, it is doubtful that a New York resident, not under disability, would be able to locate any conscientious licensed New York gun dealer or gunsmith who would be willing to accept delivery of the Maxim 50 on behalf of a customer, for transfer to that customer. It should go without saying, then, that, under no circumstance should a resident of New York attempt to obtain delivery of the Maxim 50 directly from the manufacturer; for, to do so would be to invite serious criminal repercussions under New York State law. Such attempt to obtain possession of the Maxim 50 in New York would invite unwelcome attention from the BATF as well. Interested parties should peruse the National Firearms Handbook which can be found on the BATF website. Other web pages on the BATF website contain a wealth of information on firearms rules and regulations.To its credit SilenceCo does make clear that “customers from any state should verify they are abiding by all state, local, and federal laws before purchasing.”  Individuals interested in obtaining the Maxim 50 should takes those words to heart.BOTTOM LINE: The Arbalest Quarrel concludes that the Maxim 50, as with “Assault Weapons,” as the expression ‘Assault Weapon’ is defined in the Consolidated Laws of New York, is illegal in New York. Therefore, no New York resident should attempt to obtain one.Whether the Maxim 50 is "legal" in other States requires a separate analysis of each State's own peculiar firearms' laws. The Arbalest Quarrel will analyze other State laws to ascertain whether the Maxim 50 is legal in those States, upon specific request of readers._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.