Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 05:19:51 +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 22:17:08 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 200 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-EeDEJt7Hrq9VwfxRn2raO9qUYupmPyBNn1O7XpK6RLW601ssa/dWlNRa7f0U3UuK3+EJeEKLQ44OCF8!tPaVxXek0qnxhC6p14x3kCOaTFUs8glrb2VLKxWgrdiDJ+KR/knjWTIZEazBqNb/Stvot8Yj9I5W!jQY= 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: 11359 In article , moviePig wrote: > On 6/20/2024 9:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > > 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========