U.S. Solicitor General Proves She Doesn’t Understand the “Firearms” the Department of Justice is Trying to Ban

YEE HAW!

Do you remember running around the yard on a stick horse and decimating the avian population by firing birdshot from a cap gun as a child?

Nobody does.

Except perhaps the U.S. Solicitor General, Elizabeth B. Prelogar, who seems to think birdshot can be fired from a modified toy cap gun.

In a bizarre exchange with Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito during oral arguments for Garland v. VanDerStok, Prelogar suggested plastic, toy cap guns could be modified into a weapon to fire birdshot.

See Also: The Truth About Guns and Crime: What the Media Won’t Tell You

Prelogar is defending the ATF’s likely unconstitutional rulemaking that circumvents the legislative process in an effort to regulate and ban firearms.

During the arguments, Prelogar said, “And Congress made clear in the statutory history that the reason it used that term is because there are objects out there, toys and tools, that have a well-known non-weapon use but that actually do expel projectiles through the action of an explosive.”

“A — a cap gun is an example of this. It — it expels bird shot, and so, therefore, it would fit within the functional definition. But it’s not a weapon because it’s not an instrument of combat or intended to be used in that way,” the U.S. Solicitor General concluded.

This was part of Prelogar’s argument to establish the definition of a “weapon” in the case.

You might think that the fourth-ranking official at the Department of Justice would understand that a cap gun cannot be easily converted to fire live rounds. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

The genius of the unelected government bureaucrats fighting to eliminate our constitutional rights knows no bounds.

See Also: Unelected Government Bureaucrats Demolish Homes Without Court Approval