Hague: Thoughts on bump stocks, Justice Thomas, Supreme Court

This is in response to Mr. Frederick Longacre’s recent submission (“Clarence Thomas is a ‘MAGA’ flunky”).

There are three branches of government: judicial, executive and legislative. The legislative makes the laws, the executive enforces the laws, and the judicial interprets the laws. The recently decided case of Garland v. Cargill, which dealt with administrative procedures by executive branch agencies, in reality had nothing to do with whether “bump stocks” are socially acceptable or “weapons of mass destruction.” The decision dealt with whether an executive branch agency — in this case, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act by implementing the rule concerning “bump stocks.” The decision was correct; it did violate the federal Administrative Procedure Act. The agency exceeded its authority by redefining what a machine gun was. As the decision pointed out, the bureau had repeatedly, over the last 10 years at least, issued rulings that said that, under federal law, “bump stocks” were not considered machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934. It wasn’t until after the tragic shooting in Las Vegas that then-President Donald Trump ordered the ATF to reconsider its previous rulings.

While the shooting in Law Vegas was tragic, it is not a reason to allow federal agencies to unilaterally change the law. That is the purview of Congress. It seems from your letter that you believe that the Supreme Court should engage in making decisions based on what people, such as yourself, believe is socially acceptable at the time. It also seems you are vehemently opposed to Justice Clarence Thomas because you think he has violated some ethical standard that you believe in. Justice Thomas has not violated any ethical standards set by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of what social whims are in vogue at the time. It is tasked with upholding the rule of law. In too many instances, federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, have made decisions that actually change the laws that Congress has passed. That is not what they are supposed to do. When the law is clear, the Chevron doctrine does not apply. In this case, the law was clear.

Jeff Hague

President and legislative liaison, Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association

Ellendale

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.