Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 04:21:56 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 52 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:21:57 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 3051 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17dc8379d4b63b76$167537$916931$50d51a61@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 3432 On 6/25/24 2:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , > "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: > >> BTR1701 wrote: >>> moviePig wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2024 1:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article , FPP >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/20/24 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> In article , FPP >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Bump stocks are a newer technology than the law didn't foresee... but >>>>>>>> it doesn't take a law professor to understand the intent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's why we have a Congress that can amend statutes to take into >>>>>>> account changes in technology. They do it all the time with the things >>>>>>> like the internet. They can do it with the National Firearms Act, also. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your delusions (and Hutt's) aside, courts don't decide technical >>>>>>> matters of law based on intent. Legislative history is only a tool >>>>>>> to resolve ambiguity. There's no ambiguity here. The statute's text >>>>>>> is both extremely detailed and clear. Neither the Judicial Branch >>>>>>> nor the Executive Branch have the constitutional authority to make >>>>>>> or amend statutory law. Only the Legislative Branch can do that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is something most of us learned in grade school. Apparently Effa >>>>>>> and the BATF were in a coma that day. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Aren't you guys fond of saying "just enforce the laws as written instead >>>>>> of making new ones"? >>>>> >>>>> I'm still fond of that. I'm perfectly happy with bumpers being legal. >>>>> I'm cool with enforcing the NFA as is; I don't want any new laws here. >>>> >>>> You'd be perfectly happy with machine guns being legal, wouldn't you? >>> >>> Yes, mainly because they already are legal. >>> >>> I have one. >> >> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/yes-machine-guns-are-legal-here-comes >> -all-catches-163921 > > Yes, keeping one is a tremendous pain in the ass. I bought mine in Texas > and there it resides because California. When I go back, it'll be > waiting for me, though. So you have your substitute for a dick on ice. That's just weird.