Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moviePig Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:24:48 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <17da57f2cae5dafc$3537$35484$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com> Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 00:24:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a2fbad305af87c7b41015176a1534a8"; logging-data="3530116"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19tMxQg913GqJXFCs4cgJawK3KxcoZVTVE=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:rx5L2eevWUaKd8OjhUAoP3btc9Q= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 2938 On 6/21/2024 1:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , FPP > wrote: > >> On 6/20/24 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , FPP >>> wrote: > >>>> 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"? > > I'm still fond of that. I'm perfectly happy with bumpers being legal. > I'm cool with enforcing the NFA as is; I don't want any new laws here. You'd be perfectly happy with machine guns being legal, wouldn't you?