Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moviePig Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 22:43:25 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 04:43:26 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d2d90a48413b38a40b2d22a00d23c588"; logging-data="2057776"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/yCv7emBZIwNwDufUyfF8166Z+904bNqQ=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:3/nVsunaB16hBpataEVAPQCw4Sc= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 3919 On 6/25/2024 6:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , > moviePig wrote: > >> On 6/25/2024 3:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , >>> moviePig wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/22/2024 11:46 AM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> FPP wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:59 AM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Literally not. The firing mechanism inside the gun requires >>>>>>> the trigger go through its full cycle of function (depressed, >>>>>>> released, and reset) for every round fired in a semi-auto rifle. >>>>>>> It's only activated once for an entire burst in a machine gun. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Don't care about the mechanism. >>>>> >>>>> And no one else cares what you care about. The law cares about the >>>>> mechanism, which is what matters and is why courts around the nation >>>>> don't call up Effa to see what he does and doesn't care about. >>>> >>>> The law (SCOTUS) cares about the mechanism only as a fig leaf. >>> >>> You do realize that the Court wasn't even asked to rule-- nor did it-- >>> on the question of bump stocks, right? >>> >>> The only question was whether BATF had the legal authority to >>> criminalize them or if they were unconstitutionally encroaching on the >>> powers of the Legislative Branch by doing so. >> >> A distinction without a distinction... > > No, the subject matter of the rule is pretty much irrelevant. It could > just as easily have been a HUD rule expanding the definition of "single > family home" beyond what Congress specified in a statute. The legal > issue is the same-- whether an administrative agency of the Executive > Branch is exceeding its constitutional authority by usurping the power > of the Legislative Branch. The right-wing's aim was to protect bump-stocks. Mission accomplished.