Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 04:38:16 +0000
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O309nFECNS/s0WOhB/SdHgufosY=
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
References: <P8OcnfwhaeSXPiT-nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v4i2m6$30bm2$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-25D624.12335314062024@news.giganews.com>
 <v4s1f8$1c3jr$4@dont-email.me>
 <17da57f2cae5dafc$3537$35484$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com>
 <v52kse$2qv7o$6@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-9D0347.18414220062024@news.giganews.com>
 <v52nd9$2v630$7@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-F1A6BB.22050420062024@news.giganews.com>
 <v54ujg$3bnc4$4@dont-email.me>
Message-ID: <UzCdncd8lMalyOv7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 04:38:16 +0000
Lines: 37
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-6I4/iDoSE/2qRm8q5sMvszvBnFuJHThD4yofKi1x08TQhFnkVCi5BX3epIgksnR5EObGX8QedfqqOxs!lxzaRSmu0w0QOlQPqguNxcxCBLS2nzlmC36v3++VBc2t4rJ73+sMU5zN7bm9X78u/Qc8mKvr9A==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 3138

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.