Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, joined WTOP Saturday to express his support for the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the bump stock ban.
The Supreme Court struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks Friday, ruling that the administration’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives overstepped its authority when it outlawed the gun accessory.
Bump stocks replace a rifle’s stock and harness the gun’s recoil energy, allowing the trigger to bump against the shooter’s stationary finger. Equipped with bump stocks, guns can fire at a speed similar to that of an automatic weapon.
The initial ban came down after a 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, the deadliest in modern U.S. history. The gunman, who used semiautomatic rifles fitted with bump stocks, fired more than 1,000 rounds into the crowd in 11 minutes.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has pushed firearms to the forefront of national conversation. Philip Van Cleave, gun rights advocate and president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, joined WTOP’s Nick Iannelli on Saturday to express his support for the court’s decision to reverse the ban.
Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip Van Cleave tells WTOP’s Nick Iannelli why he supports the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Trump administration’s bump stock ban
Listen to the interview or read the full transcript below. The transcript below has been lightly edited for clarity.
Nick Iannelli: Alright, Philip. So can you explain to us what you view this as? I understand it’s a win in your eyes, right? The Supreme Court’s ruling — that’s a victory for you?
Philip Van Cleave: Absolutely. It’s not that we love bump stocks — they’re OK, you know? But the idea was that the BHGS overstepped their legal bounds. They were making law and that could not be tolerated. Congress makes law, not these agencies, so that’s why we sued them over this — for that very reason that they’ve overstepped their bounds.
Nick Iannelli: Why would someone need bump stocks, though? What, in your view, is the point of having bump stocks for firearms?
Philip Van Cleave: Well, they’re fun to shoot. America, freedom is not about what you need. We got mostly what we need. We need food, we need water, we need one pair of shoes. We don’t need 10 pairs of shoes — we have what we want in America. And if you want to shoot with a bump stock, you know, you go through a lot of ammo, but it’s fun to shoot at a range. Why not? That’s what freedom is about.
Nick Iannelli: So it’s more about recreation than anything else, it sounds like.
Philip Van Cleave: Oh, absolutely. I don’t see using a bump stock really much in self-defense. You could, but that’s not the reason for it, really. Just going out and having fun. If you’ve ever fired a gun that fires that quickly, it’s a lot of fun to shoot.
Nick Iannelli: A lot of this was about whether bump stocks turn guns into quote-unquote “machine” guns? What is your thought on that? Do you think that bump stocks effectively turn guns into machine guns?
Philip Van Cleave: No, no they do not. The gun’s trigger works exactly the same as it always did. All this does is it harnesses the recoil of the gun to help you pull that trigger quicker. I can do the same exact thing without a bump stock. It’s a matter of how you hold the gun. And pushing forward on the gun with one hand and holding your trigger finger out with the other, you can create the same effect with a bump stock just with your bare hands if you know how to do it. Is it real accurate? No. I don’t know that either of them are super accurate, but anyhow, it’s really just a recreational thing.
Nick Iannelli: So when someone says that bump stocks make guns more dangerous or more deadly, what is your response to that argument?
Philip Van Cleave: Well, that’s what they say about everything when it comes to guns. If the other side loses on something, “Oh, the world’s gonna end. The world is more dangerous now.” No, there were there were tens of thousands of bump stocks out there. We had one or two incidents with them. Well, heck, if we did that we wouldn’t have any cars to drive. No, you don’t take away civil liberties, you don’t take everybody’s rights because a couple bad people do bad things. You give up your rights that way. It’s just not the way to do business.
Nick Iannelli: OK, Philip, thanks for coming on with us.
Philip Van Cleave: Sure. Glad to be on. Thank you.
Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
© 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
Kate Corliss
Source link
