I’d call it a double standard

But I’m not aware of the ATF having any standards.

Back in 2017, the ATF released a white paper, Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations. Point 8 was quite interesting.

On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.

Suppressors are “rarely used in criminal shootings.” No kidding. Therefore, they aren’t a threat to public safety and shouldn’t be NFA items. I can agree with that.

And then we have the GOA’s bump stock law suit. In oral arguments, the government…

One of the government’s lawyers brought up the Las Vegas shooting from 2017 as a reason to ban bump stocks. He claimed that the inherent dangerousness of bump stocks necessitated a ban for the sake of “public safety.”

Ooooh. “Public safety.” Because bump stocks are used… Um, how often?

GOA’s attorney countered by telling the judge there is no actual proof of one recorded instance where bump stocks have been used in a crime.

Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter.

I’m sure the DOJ lawyer was quick to set the record straight, and tell the judge all about Mandalay Bay and all the… othertimes.

This was something of a “mic drop” moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government’s lawyer could not — in fact, he refused to — counter Olson’s statement on this point.

Since that would have been a heck of a good time to affirmatively state that bump stocks were used (as opposed to being there), the refusal to do so suggests that…

Bump-fire stocks have never been used in a crime, unlike suppressors which are not a threat to public safety.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

2 thoughts on “I’d call it a double standard”

  1. You must be mistaken. Everyone knows that bumpstocks were used in the Las Vegas shooting. Um, weren’t they? Weren’t they? I thought they were, that is why it is so important that we ban them. Unless. You mean, that they were not really used, and the ATF is not going out on a limb to tell a lie, knowing that it would come back and bite them? Well, huh, what do you know.

    1. Yeah, sometimes judges get hissy about lawyers lying to them, so staying quiet instead of making a definitive statement makes sense.

      Added: Seems to me that if bump stocks were not used, but the DOJ attorney was unaware of that, he could, in good faith, state that they were based upon common “news” reports. But he didn’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *