Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:00:28 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 91 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:00:30 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a2fbad305af87c7b41015176a1534a8"; logging-data="4112844"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+hwIRhcxNNb/IphaR7mBI0ud+MMNtBgs=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:bFpuobAgfQsynfUQiOrAKnQmmRc= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5646 On 6/22/2024 1:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: >> FPP wrote: >>> On 6/21/24 1:02 AM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>> In article , FPP >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/20/24 9:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>> In article , FPP >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/19/24 9:10 PM, shawn wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:28:26 -0700, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In article , >>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Machine gun: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "...any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily >>>>>>>>>> restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual >>>>>>>>>> reloading, by a single function of the trigger." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now, tell me again how either gun in my video doesn't qualify... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because with the bump stock, it's only firing one shot per pull of the >>>>>>>>> trigger. The trigger is just being pulled repeatedly really fast as a >>>>>>>>> result of rebounding recoil caused by the bump stock. The bumper rocks >>>>>>>>> the rifle back and forth against the shooter's trigger finger, causing a >>>>>>>>> separate trigger pull each time. The statute you quoted above clearly >>>>>>>>> says "by a SINGLE function of the trigger". If you shoot 100 rounds with >>>>>>>>> a bump stock, you've got 100 functions of the trigger, not a single >>>>>>>>> function of the trigger. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, you are definitely technically correct. (The best kind.) That >>>>>>>> said you can see why people consider the bump stock to be the >>>>>>>> equivalent of turning a weapon into an equal to a machine gun. It >>>>>>>> isn't a machine gun but it ends throwing lead down field much like >>>>>>>> one. I think eventually the law will be updated to include bump stocks >>>>>>>> but who knows how long that will take. As no one who was involved in >>>>>>>> writing the original act likely foresaw the possibility of a bump >>>>>>>> stock. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Both still require the same action. A single trigger pull, with >>>>>>> constant pressure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which isn't the standard under the law. The law's standard is a "single >>>>>> function of the trigger". As I said above, if you shoot 100 rounds with >>>>>> a bump stock, you've got 100 functions of the trigger, not a single >>>>>> function of the trigger. >>>>>> >>>>>> A semi-auto rifle physically can't fire more than one round with a >>>>>> single function of the trigger. It's impossible for a semi-auto rifle to >>>>>> meet the definition of "machine gun" under the NFA. >>>>> >>>>> You keep glossing over the fact that both machine guns and bump stocks >>>>> require the same action. >>>> >>>> No, I'm focusing on the one thing that legally matters: a single >>>> function of the trigger. It's literally impossible for a semi-auto rifle >>>> to fire more than one round with a single function of the trigger. The >>>> trigger mechanism must complete a full cycle of function for every round >>>> that leaves the barrel. >>>> >>> >>> Which is what the bump stock facilitates. >> >> Yes, it facilitates multiple trigger functions in rapid succession, and >> since it's multiple functions, not a single function, it falls outside the >> definition of machine gun in the Act. >>> >>> Fuck what they decided on bump stocks. They turn single shot guns into >>> machine guns >> >> The Court didn't turn anything into anything. They clearly said Congress >> can regulate machine guns and can even include bump stocks in the >> definition if it collectively so desires. But the Court clarified that >> Congress is the *only* body that can do this. BATF can't do it for them. > > Congress can write such a law without it being unconstitutional under > the Second Amendment. That's the message from Alito's concurrence. > > The message to the idiots with massive reading comprehension problems: > It is possible to carefully draft laws regulating firearm use and possession > that are constitutional. No. Against a determined judiciary, it's *not* possible. (And the present instance may eventually become a textbook example.)