Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 04:21:56 -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> <atropos-F1A6BB.22050420062024@news.giganews.com> <v54ujg$3bnc4$4@dont-email.me> <UzCdncd8lMalyOv7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v55rlu$3klos$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-6AABA3.12321025062024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-6AABA3.12321025062024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 52
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: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:21:57 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 3051
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17dc8379d4b63b76$167537$916931$50d51a61@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 3432

On 6/25/24 2:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <v55rlu$3klos$1@dont-email.me>,
>   "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> 
>> BTR1701  <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 1:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <v52nd9$2v630$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/20/24 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <v52kse$2qv7o$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Yes, mainly because they already are legal.
>>>
>>> I have one.
>>
>> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/yes-machine-guns-are-legal-here-comes
>> -all-catches-163921
> 
> Yes, keeping one is a tremendous pain in the ass. I bought mine in Texas
> and there it resides because California. When I go back, it'll be
> waiting for me, though.


So you have your substitute for a dick on ice.  That's just weird.