Giving the Law the Finger
Michael Cargill wins; Americans lose
As usual, the paltry excuse for America’s highest deliberative body of so-called jurists has ruled (an apt word, I might say) that banning the modifying of a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic one is legally different than banning a ‘machinegun.’ Written by the perennial yacht-sailing vacationer Clarence Thomas, the majority opinion was joined by the other Federalist cronies along with a concurrence by my-wife-makes-the-rules Samuel Alito.
Michael Cargill, an owner of the very inaptly named Good Guys Gun Shop in Austin, Texas, filed suit because the ATF forced him to surrender two bump stocks. Employing his vast knowledge of the law, he whined that “an administrative agency deciding that they’re going to create a law… do not have the authority to do that.” Upon the court entering the decision, he then crowed, “I think of the Second Amendment as a right for the people. I don’t care who’s the president, who’s in office and who’s in charge. This was wrong. I was going to fight it. I’m glad I did it. I did it all by myself.” And he did do it… “smartly.” As he put it, “I needed to think of this case smartly, using our brains here and not thinking of everything as just about stripping the Second Amendment.” Step back Learned Hand, a new legal genius is in the house.
Cargill, an apparent regular at the pub aptly named “Bender,” across the street from his shop, is not new to the media. A stereotypical Texan, he “wears steel-toe cowboy boots that click when he walks” and is a self-admitted troll. He proclaims to “love the Second Amendment,” and demands that nothing “tarnish that right.” What he means by ‘tarnish’ is anyone’s guess. After all, Texas law had previously banned open carry in bars and restaurants. But when the state legislature rescinded the ban on the latter and bars simply started calling themselves restaurants, Cargill openly opposed the change noting that it would lead to more shootings. He said, “There’s a powder keg coming and you guys don’t even know it.”
Yet, for some reason Cargill worries over the administrative power of certain federal agencies when it comes to bump stocks. Perhaps that concern derives from his idea that vigilantism is more reliable than law enforcement. After all, he told one outlet that minorities simply “don’t want to put their lives in the hands of law enforcement.” He qualified that statement by pointing out that gun control is a form of class discrimination, not racial. In either case, due process be damned.
Curiously, he also believes local sheriffs are more powerful than the federal government, stating “They can tell the federal government what they can and can’t do in their county. [Sheriffs] can kick the feds out of the county.” Perhaps he has never heard of Joe Arpaio. Anyway, it seems his contempt for law enforcement depends on specific conditions.
When Cargill brought his suit, the Federalist Society… ahem… the court happily accepted it. Thomas, whose nugatory bribe receiving certainly in no way influenced his decision, concluded that “even if a semiautomatic rifle could fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger, it would not do so ‘automatically’.” It is June, after all, and his friend’s private jet awaits.
Another of our vaunted band of Supreme jurists, Stop-the-Steal Alito, noted in his concurrence that:
There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock.
BUT, he also proclaimed that the minutiae surrounding the definition of the pressure of a finger on a trigger clearly indicates that the statute did not contemplate bump stocks. No worries, he confidently continued: “There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law.”
Alito understands the meaning of “simple” as adeptly as he does Appeal to Heaven.
As long as the sycophantic tripe otherwise known as the Republican Party holds a majority, this court will persist in its descent into lawless madness. This juridical embarrassment readily hears twaddle of the likes of Cargill, but cannot seem to figure out whether the President of the United States should be free to assassinate political opponents willy-nilly. It cannot discern between racial and political motives, and believes boofing in a devil’s triangle means crashing a plane near Bermuda. Certain members lack the intellect to properly file an ethics form. Others so witheringly cower before the force of their spouse that they see no recourse to flying treasonous flags on their property in the lead-up to cases directly relevant to the cause espoused.
Even if Democrats gain the majority, they need to put the Durbin-esque relics where they belong — in a museum. Dispense with carrying on the Weekend at Bernie’s plot where fossilized Senators play-act their role of judicial oversight. Let the true warriors lead the charge, those who act on the courage of their convictions. Start by packing, or — if the majority is large enough — unpacking this desecration inaptly referred to as Supreme.
Robert Vanwey was Senior Technical Analyst for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice, specializing in investigating public corruption, technology and financial crime. He also has a Juris Doctor and Master degree in history.
For more on the corruption of American Courts, check out Oh Mea Amici! Or, read According to Trump, Any President can do Anything, Including Kill You, a careful analysis of Trump’s immunity arguments made before the Supreme Court. Finally, check out the Evidence Files Substack for an exploration into technology, science, aviation, and the Himalayas, where Rob frequently lives and works.
