Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 05:06:30 -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: 8bit Lines: 118 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.endofthelinebbs.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 10:06:30 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 5742 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17db9a2aa8acb743$240$3767249$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 6150 On 6/22/24 3:00 PM, moviePig wrote: > On 6/22/2024 1:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> BTR1701  wrote: >>> FPP wrote: >>>> On 6/21/24 1:02 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. 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which is what the bump stock facilitates. >>> >>> Yes, it facilitates multiple trigger functions in rapid succession, and >>> since it's multiple functions, not a single function, it falls >>> outside the >>> definition of machine gun in the Act. >>>> >>>> Fuck what they decided on bump stocks. They turn single shot guns into >>>> machine guns >>> >>> The Court didn't turn anything into anything. They clearly said Congress >>> can regulate machine guns and can even include bump stocks in the >>> definition if it collectively so desires. But the Court clarified that >>> Congress is the *only* body that can do this. BATF can't do it for them. >> >> Congress can write such a law without it being unconstitutional under >> the Second Amendment. That's the message from Alito's concurrence. >> >> The message to the idiots with massive reading comprehension problems: >> It is possible to carefully draft laws regulating firearm use and >> possession >> that are constitutional. > > No.  Against a determined judiciary, it's *not* possible. > > (And the present instance may eventually become a textbook example.) Speaking of comprehension problems here's a video of Trump babbling about not being able to get enough water. And yet Adam H. Verman doesn't seem to be talking about him. https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1804664764200615936/pu/vid/avc1/640x360/fPg6JQ7WOjHA5_wp.mp4?tag=12