That wasn’t remotely the basis of the ruling. It was essentially ruled that they don’t meet the definition of a machine gun in the law, which limits what the ATF can do. It was mentioned that congress can amend the law and ban them. They just haven’t.
And there is no constitutional right to bump stocks. They just ruled there is no current law against it. If there was a constitutional right to them, you couldn’t ban them even with a law.
That wasn’t remotely the basis of the ruling. It was essentially ruled that they don’t meet the definition of a machine gun in the law, which limits what the ATF can do. It was mentioned that congress can amend the law and ban them. They just haven’t.
Right. And because Congress hasn’t prohibited them, they’re fair game.
I was talking more about the general principle of what is allowed versus prohibited than this specific case, though.
My point is, they did not rule a ban unconstitutional, since they asked where it was in the constitution.
I read it as asking where in the Constitution there is a right to bump stocks. Did you read as asking where the ban is?
And there is no constitutional right to bump stocks. They just ruled there is no current law against it. If there was a constitutional right to them, you couldn’t ban them even with a law.
I didn’t say he was asking where the ban is.