Path: ...!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:34:32 +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> <atropos-F1A6BB.22050420062024@news.giganews.com> <v54ujg$3bnc4$4@dont-email.me> <UzCdncd8lMalyOv7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v55rlu$3klos$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:32:10 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-6AABA3.12321025062024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 48
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Z3z+au5SdSoKR6XfFQCQnK8ZnrLRAxUJBx7Qopd9GkqBkvK6cfxEyzB7/2gUriK86xks3cDDFS7O2s+!wXHMuP1np0AcH/Gd9cS7bqxOYXBhFZUqcK7prMUTHflzLDVWP48n4BdPj6S6ktM13B1UE8TWA5Uv!woc=
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: 3302

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.