Path: ...!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 01:52:07 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban References: <17d91fbd5fad865f$338100$533214$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:49:25 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 166 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-Vcudjda8FkxlJWltsqgwMDwyKyTSjD1oC82jRHgVsGEybg8UYH70dBYB8dsfsK+GGpLpRKFzLlgcLmm!7KJ8GmdZ1ugzKEI00ByyUfyqGT6NrohgE4igh+/lt9lVQZmar6JFgyOhyzHJLBjU/RmR3nZw7USY!dCs= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 9655 In article , FPP wrote: > On 6/19/24 7:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > > In article , > > moviePig wrote: > > > >> On 6/19/2024 3:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>> In article , > >>> moviePig wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 6/18/2024 10:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>> In article , > >>>>> moviePig wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 6/18/2024 9:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>>>> In article , > >>>>>>> moviePig wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 6/18/2024 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article , FPP > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 8:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>>>> <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>, > >>>>>>>>>>> trotsky wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:46 AM, moviePig wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 4:20 AM, trotsky wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 5:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Federal Firearms Act of 1934 > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From wiki: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The current National Firearms Act (NFA) defines a number of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> collectively > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> known as NFA firearms and include the following: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Machine guns: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "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. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the possession or under the control of a person."[10] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, bump-stocks are patently a "workaround" for a law whose > >>>>>>>>>>>>> intent is patently obvious. Not exactly a triumph of sanity. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "A work around" is accurate. And the spirit of the law is far > >>>>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>> important, obviously, than the letter of the law > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Oh, cool! I see Hutt the Fuck-Up Fairy has visited us again! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No, Hutt, you're unsurprisingly about as absolutely wrong as you > >>>>>>>>>>> can be yet again. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The letter of the law is obviously paramount in the context of > >>>>>>>>>>> jurisprudential determination as evidenced by the 1000-page > >>>>>>>>>>> statutes > >>>>>>>>>>> we have coming out of Congress, millions of pages of > >>>>>>>>>>> administrative > >>>>>>>>>>> regulations, and the multi-page click-thrus of tiny and near- > >>>>>>>>>>> hieroglyphic legalese that you have to agree to just to use a > >>>>>>>>>>> piece of software. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If all we needed to concern ourselves with was a law's "spirit", > >>>>>>>>>>> then none of that would be necessary. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'd elaborate further but I don't have the time or the crayons to > >>>>>>>>>>> explain it to you. Jeezus, Hutt, if I wanted to kill myself, I'd > >>>>>>>>>>> climb your ego and jump to your IQ. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> And how does using a bump stock differ from a fully automatic > >>>>>>>>>> machine > >>>>>>>>>> gun? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> With a bump stock, for every round fired, a separate trigger pull > >>>>>>>>> occurs. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> With a machine gun, one one trigger pull is required to fire > >>>>>>>>> multiple > >>>>>>>>> rounds. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Also, the rate of fire of a bump stock-equipped rifle is > >>>>>>>>> significantly > >>>>>>>>> slower than a rifle firing on full-auto. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So, this 15-sec. video is a lie? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brrecvXhRVc > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I don't know what you're talking about. You can clearly see the bump > >>>>>>> device using the recoil (and Newton's Third Law) to reset the trigger > >>>>>>> after every round. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What I'm seeing is a NOT "significantly slower" rate of fire. > >>>>> > >>>>> The bump device I used produce a fast rate of fire but not as fast as > >>>>> full-auto rifle. Perhaps this is a different model that works more > >>>>> efficiently. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regardless, the law passed by Congress did not differentiate "machine > >>>>> gun" from other guns by how fast it shoots, so the rate of fire is > >>>>> actually irrelevant to the issue. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, we've already established that a determined judiciary can do an > >>>> end-run around even the clearest legislative intent. > >>> > >>> They didn't end-run anything. They only reiterated-- since our > >>> government seems to have lost its way and needs a reminder-- that > >>> Congress is the only body granted the authority by the Constitution to > >>> legislate in this country, not administrative agencies like BATF, and if > >>> Congress wants to change the definition of "machine gun" to incorporate > >>> bump stocks into it, it can do so at any time. However, BATF has no > >>> authority to do it for them. > >> > >> 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. > > > > Now you tell me, if bump stocks meet the definition of "machine gun" as > > written in the statute, why did the BATF feel the need to rewrite the > > statute to include them? BATF is on record when bump stocks first became > > popular with a determination that a bump stock-equipped rifle does NOT > > meet the definition of "machine gun" under the Act. It was only after > > the Las Vegas shooting that the BATF-- under political pressure-- > > decided to promulgate rules that added totally new criteria to the > > definition of "machine gun" not found in the actual statute. This is > > what got them a spanking by SCOTUS. > > > > https://babylonbee.com/new/all-bump-stocks-lost-in-boating-accidents-back > > -in-2017-miraculously-wash-up-on-shore > > > Yes, it fits. The law doesn't specify a trigger pull by the finger. > It says "a single function of the trigger". > > Machine gun requires one pull, and steady pressure on the trigger. > A bump stock requires one pull, and steady pressure on the trigger. > > How are they substantively different, counselor? One's trigger is functioned only once, the other's trigger functions for every round fired.