Aposhian v. Barr

By Ilya Shapiro, Josh Blackman, Matthew Larosiere Ilya Shapiro, Josh Blackman, Matthew Larosiere

Before the tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas, almost nobody in
the United States had ever heard of a “bump stock.”
What was, and always has been, a gun-range novelty was suddenly the
subject of national discussion. In the months following the
tragedy, Congress considered and ultimately rejected a law banning
these devices. Eager to seize political capital, however, the Trump
administration sought to ban them anyway.

The administration faced one problem, though: the Constitution.
As anyone who’s seen School House Rock can tell you, only
Congress can write new laws. Never to let something like a written
constitution get in their way, the administration tried to make new
law by “reinterpreting” an existing law: the National
Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), which heavily regulates
“machineguns.”

For decades, Congress, the executive branch, and the people
shared a common understanding: the definition of
“machinegun” in the NFA was clear, applying only to
weapons that fired continuously from a single function. Be it with
a button, a lever, or a traditional trigger, a
“machinegun” fires continuously upon the performance of
a single function. Bump stocks, which require substantial and
continuous user input to fire, had never been considered
“machineguns.” President Trump announced that his
administration was changing course. The president expressly
declined to go through Congress, instead directing officials to
redefine bump-stock …Read the Rest

Source:: Cato Institute