Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 04:14:40 -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: 68 Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-1.netnews.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:14:40 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 4234 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17dafa2d6b4d828a$159722$3694546$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 4553 On 6/21/24 12:02 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. Sure, because you're lying. It "legally matters" to a corrupt Supreme Court that is in service to the gun lobby. 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.