—
With the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill looming, gun control activists are engaging in some Big Brother-esque torture of the English language to defend the ATF’s abuse of its regulatory authority.
ThedoubleplusungoodspinfromgroupslikeBradyandGiffordsisbeingaidedandabettedbyguncontrol-friendlywriterslikeTheHill’sClayotonVickers,whocontendsthatiftheATF’sruleisstruckdownbytheSupremeCourtit“couldquicklyopenanunfetteredmarketplaceofnewer,morepowerfulrapid-firedevices.”
DavidPucino,legaldirectoratGiffordsLawCenter,saidlowercourtsarecurrentlytreatingbumpstocksandsimilardeviceslikemachineguns,whicharebanned.
“Theusecasefornewrapid-firedeviceslowercourtsareconsideringisthatsomebodywantstohaveamachinegun,andthelawwon’tletthemhaveone,”Pucinosaid.
IftheSupremeCourtdoesoverturntheban,hesaid,it“wouldbevery,verydangerousforpublicsafety.”
Pucino’scommentsareerroneousonseveralcounts.First,noteverylowercourtsaretreatingbumpstockslikemachineguns.Ifthatwerethe
