Justices followed the law with bump stock decision

The Baltimore Sun Editorial Board got it wrong in “Why not ban bump stocks?” (Jan. 17).

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Garland v. Cargill that the law means what the text says, not what unelected bureaucrats, or your editors, think the text ought to have said.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its statutory authority when it reclassified bump stocks as “machine guns” under federal law.

The editorial board wrote, “Relying on a strict interpretation of the law — essentially that the trigger still has to be pulled, which is not precisely how a machine gun works — the majority threw out regulations.” Wrong. How could the Supreme Court throw out something that was not even law? And federal law does not include “rate of fire” as a factor for determining whether a weapon is a machine gun. The court focused on the internal mechanics of the gun, which is current law.

I expect the fight to ban bump stocks to continue, however. Congress will need to amend the National Firearms Act of 1935 and the definition of a machine gun. Simply banning a device that is not part of the internal mechanics of a firearm won’t work.

The good news is that this ruling will help ensure that future unelected government officials cannot ban firearms and accessories by administrative decree.

The ruling also casts doubt on recent ATF edicts including the “pistol brace,” “frame or receiver” and “engaged in the business” rules in which the ATF contradicts Congress’s explicit statutory language.

— Cathy S. Wright, North Beach

Resolving ethical questions raised by prosecutor’s book

It was no surprise when former Assistant United States Attorney Joyce McDonald defended her colleague, Leo Wise, after my commentary suggested that he may have committed an ethical violation (“Prosecutor’s book about Baltimore’s Gun Trace Task Force raises ethics questions,” April 17).

I welcome McDonald’s response (“Criticism of Leo Wise was wrong on facts and the law,” May 17) because it promotes further discussion of the important issue of whether Wise or any active prosecutor should ever publish “the inside story” of a criminal prosecution.

My op-ed focused on a prosecutor’s legal ethics — not any criminal violation — and highlighted the potential conflicts of interest that could arise when a prosecutor provides a public personal account of one of their criminal prosecutions. A prosecutor’s mission to render impartial justice becomes compromised when considering a case’s value as a potential best seller and not just another routine plea bargain.

To gain the trust of witnesses from heavily policed communities, prosecutors must persuade them to testify, if necessary. Many witnesses will be reluctant to do so if they fear their identity will appear in a prosecutor’s crime story.

McDonald argued forcefully that Wise violated no federal law, but no one ever suggested that he did. The real issue involves ethics, not law. Until Wise’s book, prosecutors generally embraced a well-accepted ethical prohibition against book publication.

In fact, the view is so widely recognized that neither he nor I could find a single example of an active prosecutor writing such a book. Not one.

The more interesting question in the case is whether Wise complied with the American Bar Association’s standard that requires a prosecutor to obtain supervisory approval prior to publication. Yet we do not know that.

It’s reasonable to expect McDonald would have informed us had the nation’s attorney general or other high-ranking U.S. Department of Justice official approved publication. One is left wondering whether Wise acted on his own initiative and never received permission from his immediate supervisor, the U.S. Attorney in Maryland.

To protect against future “wild card” prosecutors telling us about their conquests, the ABA should draft an explicit rule that protects witnesses against unwarranted disclosures. Such a rule would remind prosecutors they represent the government entity as a “minister of justice.”

— Doug Colbert, Baltimore

The writer is a professor of law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law.

Ten Commandments merit place in classroom

Kids in America are in serious need of moral guidance. A decade ago, I would have opposed the Ten Commandments display in Louisiana, but not now. Let’s inject a dose of patriotism into these classrooms as well! (“New law requires all Louisiana public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments,” June 19).

— Scott R. Hammond, Baltimore