New York Attorney General Letitia James got some bad news.
The Supreme Court stepped in and righted a major wrong.
And Letitia James howled in anger over this major Supreme Court loss.
James rants after Supreme Court overturns the bump stock ban
Democrats don’t think the courts exist to interpret the law and decide cases based on how the Constitution applies to the given set of facts.
Liberals want a results-oriented judiciary that rubber stamps their agenda by bending the law to arrive at the desired outcome.
James’ reaction to the Supreme Court overturning the bump stock ban served as a perfect example of this philosophy.
“Make no mistake: bump stocks are dangerous devices that can cause incredible harm,” James posted on social media in the aftermath of the decision.
Gunman Stephen Paddock used a bump stock in the 2017 shooting at Las Vegas and therefore gun-grabbers thought they could ban the device no matter what the law or the Constitution said.
“The shooter in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history in Las Vegas used a bump stock,” James continued.
“This decision jeopardizes the safety of every community in this country,” James added.
Disagreement on the Supreme Court
James wasn’t the only font of Constitutional illiteracy on this subject.
That also extended to liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Sotomayor penned an embarrassing dissent that only served to expose the fact she didn’t know anything about either the Constitution or firearms.
“This is not a hard case,” Sotomayor stated.
Sotomayor showed she didn’t know the difference between a semiautomatic weapon – one pull of the trigger fired one bullet – and an automatic weapon where one pull of the trigger fires multiple bullets.
In her dissent, Sotomayor falsely claimed a bump stock altered a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic weapon.
“All the textual evidence points to the same interpretation. A bump-stock equipped semi-automatic rifle is a machine gun because (1) with a single pull of the trigger, a shooter can (2) fire continuous shots without any human input beyond maintaining forward pressure,” Sotomayor wrote.
Sotomayor then claimed the law was whatever she felt it was.
“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” Sotomayor added.
Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion and included a quick explainer for liberals like Sotomayor and James.
“Semiautomatic firearms, which require shooters to reengage the trigger for every shot, are not machineguns,” Thomas stated.
“Between every shot, the shooter must release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot,” Thomas continued.
The conservative majority got the case right on the law and the facts.
James and Sotomayor don’t care about either.
They are gun-grabbers who wanted bump stocks banned, and since the court didn’t arrive at their preferred outcome, they threw a temper tantrum.
