Let's skip the "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed in any way" argument...whether or not that should be the law, it's not the law of the land under DC v. Heller. In order to be protected under DC v. Heller, a firearm needs to actually provide utility for self-defense, sport, or hunting to receive Second Amendment protection.
Can anyone articulate a reason why bump-fire stocks would fall into one of these three categories, or why they're an important militia tool, or any argument of the sort that would give them legal protection under DC v. Heller? I'm not seeing it.
Can anyone articulate a reason why bump-fire stocks would fall into one of these three categories, or why they're an important militia tool, or any argument of the sort that would give them legal protection under DC v. Heller? I'm not seeing it.