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 15:46:57 +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: <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>
 <atropos-3C4CB7.18492520062024@news.giganews.com>
 <v52nan$2v630$5@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-B6CEA3.21594220062024@news.giganews.com>
 <v56q7b$3qg7n$2@dont-email.me>
Message-ID: <lfmdnR7OQrVsbOv7nZ2dnZfqn_sAAAAA@giganews.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:46:57 +0000
Lines: 198
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-kRHtjI6j85RDpKqhELdtFE0W+zUd6w++l2WNHshXuMyzWHMGE2vSBZm9xhyWyVVEQkJLkG7Kc9UzGKG!NeuT2oJR2vbbX7camOZGHJvQRw5v+jj5gWVvjMOHU6OZlM9MLc0EoYDmEFvhadpvS5QWJVxUAg==
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: 11343

FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/24 12:59 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <v52nan$2v630$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/20/24 9:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========