Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:48:27 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 84 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:48:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38586e4b900edccc9e578beee4abad4e"; logging-data="4054063"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2rnz1/ziTJ3KNBzkC1C0MnB6Ywd9f+TM=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:QZAqRANXW5EgHFT9ld/WWquDcCo= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Bytes: 5093 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.