Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 03:04:35 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <17d91fbd5fad865f$338100$533214$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 155 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: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 08:04:35 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 8523 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17daa7c5d1888b37$518478$1616079$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 8905 On 6/19/24 6:28 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 You're just using moviepig as low hanging fruit because you're a fucking coward. I already gave you the right answer by posting what Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe said. Grow a pair of balls you mealy mouthed asshole. 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