Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 03:04:35 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <P8OcnfwhaeSXPiT-nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> <v4i2m6$30bm2$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-25D624.12335314062024@news.giganews.com> <v4ih8u$336lr$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-C652A7.15471614062024@news.giganews.com> <17d91fbd5fad865f$338100$533214$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <v4kgh9$3i0t8$1@dont-email.me> <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-13D763.17305115062024@news.giganews.com> <v4s1kl$1c3jr$5@dont-email.me> <atropos-B5B6C7.14031818062024@news.giganews.com> <v4t1nu$1ig6v$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-5889D5.18473418062024@news.giganews.com> <v4tfnl$1ons5$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-C71DF5.19385218062024@news.giganews.com> <v4v8jq$23o16$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-A285B6.12133319062024@news.giganews.com> <v4vh5f$258cf$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-35247F.16282619062024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-35247F.16282619062024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 155
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 08:04:35 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 8523
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17daa7c5d1888b37$518478$1616079$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 8905

On 6/19/24 6:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <v4vh5f$258cf$2@dont-email.me>,
>   moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/19/2024 3:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <v4v8jq$23o16$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>    moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/18/2024 10:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <v4tfnl$1ons5$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>     moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/18/2024 9:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <v4t1nu$1ig6v$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>      moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2024 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <v4s1kl$1c3jr$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 8:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>        trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> 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 



You're just using moviepig as low hanging fruit because you're a fucking 
coward.  I already gave you the right answer by posting what Harvard Law 
Professor Lawrence Tribe said.  Grow a pair of balls you mealy mouthed 
asshole.



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