Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:39:54 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
References: <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> <s6077jpsl679hmse4jdbsf9eg38a9pf6qt@4ax.com> <v52ki8$2qv7o$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-0C76E1.18474220062024@news.giganews.com> <v52n7s$2v630$4@dont-email.me> <atropos-4D6141.22022320062024@news.giganews.com> <v54t46$3bnc4$2@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:37:32 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-9EEF71.12373225062024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 73
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-KlR7+gqY/pGPNTXOX4jykDTTsyD2OWBNJCgL/+p6K32/z6q8+2/yzU8mCNvx45VwK+36XxoW+C6frdJ!OMLMEBKlXYzYiM+Xc98TZBNno1hwfo4gvbflmRTZJtWEW6VH7Nxe5/J1fQ5SbawuDR27aR6LDtmo!OcE=
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: 5128

In article <v54t46$3bnc4$2@dont-email.me>,
 moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 6/21/2024 1:02 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <v52n7s$2v630$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On 6/20/24 9:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <v52ki8$2qv7o$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/19/24 9:10 PM, shawn wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:28:26 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article <v4vh5f$258cf$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>> moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, you are definitely technically correct. (The best kind.) That
> >>>>> said you can see why people consider the bump stock to be the
> >>>>> equivalent of turning a weapon into an equal to a machine gun. It
> >>>>> isn't a machine gun but it ends throwing lead down field much like
> >>>>> one. I think eventually the law will be updated to include bump stocks
> >>>>> but who knows how long that will take. As no one who was involved in
> >>>>> writing the original act likely foresaw the possibility of a bump
> >>>>> stock.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Both still require the same action. A single trigger pull, with
> >>>> constant pressure.
> >>>
> >>> Which isn't the standard under the law. The law's standard is a "single
> >>> function of the trigger". As I said above, if you shoot 100 rounds with
> >>> a bump stock, you've got 100 functions of the trigger, not a single
> >>> function of the trigger.
> >>>
> >>> A semi-auto rifle physically can't fire more than one round with a
> >>> single function of the trigger. It's impossible for a semi-auto rifle to
> >>> meet the definition of "machine gun" under the NFA.
> >>
> >> You keep glossing over the fact that both machine guns and bump stocks
> >> require the same action.
> > 
> > No, I'm focusing on the one thing that legally matters: a single
> > function of the trigger. It's literally impossible for a semi-auto rifle
> > to fire more than one round with a single function of the trigger. The
> > trigger mechanism must complete a full cycle of function for every round
> > that leaves the barrel.
> 
> What official verbiage defines "a function of the trigger"?

Just that: completion of a full cycle of function.
 
> If it's different for full-auto, why not for bump-stocks?

The definition is not different for full-auto. A full cycle of function 
of the trigger with an automatic rifle just produces different results 
than it does with a semi-auto.