Path: ...!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 01:52:07 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
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> <v52kf9$2qv7o$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:49:25 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-3C4CB7.18492520062024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 166
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Vcudjda8FkxlJWltsqgwMDwyKyTSjD1oC82jRHgVsGEybg8UYH70dBYB8dsfsK+GGpLpRKFzLlgcLmm!7KJ8GmdZ1ugzKEI00ByyUfyqGT6NrohgE4igh+/lt9lVQZmar6JFgyOhyzHJLBjU/RmR3nZw7USY!dCs=
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: 9655

In article <v52kf9$2qv7o$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> On 6/19/24 7:28 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 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
> > 
> Yes, it fits. The law doesn't specify a trigger pull by the finger.
> It says "a single function of the trigger".
> 
> Machine gun requires one pull, and steady pressure on the trigger.
> A bump stock requires one pull, and steady pressure on the trigger.
> 
> How are they substantively different, counselor?

One's trigger is functioned only once, the other's trigger functions for 
every round fired.