Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FPP Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:09:45 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 92 Message-ID: References: <17da57f2cae5dafc$3537$35484$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com> Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 04:09:46 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="135701bad7255964217cc25f17b69a9f"; logging-data="3119200"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+c3rQQo+Le/RuUdWAsjdqf" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:WXIVBBeVooCP7yL8feouVJGo3Ds= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5513 On 6/20/24 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , FPP > wrote: > >> On 6/19/24 3:41 AM, trotsky wrote: >>> On 6/18/24 8:18 AM, FPP wrote: >>>> On 6/14/24 3:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article , >>>>>   "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/5th-circuit-court-of-appeals-strikes-d >>>>>>> own-t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> rump-bump-stock-ban/ >>>>>> >>>>>>> A Trump administration ban on bump stocks-- devices that enable a >>>>>>> shooter >>>>>>> to rapidly fire multiple rounds from semi-automatic weapons after an >>>>>>> initial trigger pull-- was struck down Friday by a federal appeals >>>>>>> court in >>>>>>> New Orleans. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The ban was instituted after a gunman perched in a high-rise hotel >>>>>>> using >>>>>>> bump stock-equipped weapons massacred dozens of people in Las Vegas in >>>>>>> 2017. Gun rights advocates have challenged it in multiple courts. >>>>>>> The 13-3 >>>>>>> ruling at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest on >>>>>>> the issue, >>>>>>> which is likely to be decided at the Supreme Court. >>>>>> >>>>>> This case was appealed to the Supreme Court by the government, and >>>>>> accepted >>>>>> because of the circuit split. Garland v. Cargill >>>>>> >>>>>> Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, siding against the >>>>>> government and in favor of Michael Cargill, the gun store owner who had >>>>>> turned in two bump stocks to ATF to have standing to sue to have the >>>>>> regulation overturned. >>>>> >>>>> This is great news. The ban was struck down not on some technicality, >>>>> but on the basis that the law says what it says and the BATF can't just >>>>> decide it wants to 'interpret it' to mean something entirely different >>>>> to conform to the politics of the moment and make instant felons out of >>>>> hundreds of thousands of citizens who legally bought expensive equipment >>>>> that the government refuses to reimburse them for while at the same time >>>>> requiring them to surrender it to law enforcement. >>>> >>>> It was struck down by an illegitimate and corrupt court because they >>>> were paid to strike it down. >>>> >>>> Once you get that, all rulings become clear. >>> >>> Isn't it queer how when I pointed him to Harvard Law Professor Laurence >>> Tribe's explanation of the situation Thanny shut his fucking mouth on >>> the subject? >>> >> He doesn't have a good rebuttal because there isn't one. >> Everybody who uses common sense understands what the law was designed to do. >> >> Bump stocks are a newer technology than the law didn't foresee... but it >> doesn't take a law professor to understand the intent. > > That's why we have a Congress that can amend statutes to take into > account changes in technology. They do it all the time with the things > like the internet. They can do it with the National Firearms Act, also. > > Your delusions (and Hutt's) aside, courts don't decide technical matters > of law based on intent. Legislative history is only a tool to resolve > ambiguity. There's no ambiguity here. The statute's text is both > extremely detailed and clear. Neither the Judicial Branch nor the > Executive Branch have the constitutional authority to make or amend > statutory law. Only the Legislative Branch can do that. > > This is something most of us learned in grade school. Apparently Effa > and the BATF were in a coma that day. > Aren't you guys fond of saying "just enforce the laws as written instead of making new ones"? -- On May 30, 2024 Donald J. Trump was unanimously convicted on 34 felony counts in New York City... so I took this picture in my side yard. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0 "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC Bible 25B.G. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0