Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.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: <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>
 <v56q4g$3qg7n$1@dont-email.me>
Message-ID: <lfmdnR_OQrVsbOv7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:46:57 +0000
Lines: 76
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-xr1b2i9zgCBjQ+tJ9wcwEV2vEwT7cHmEBE+m64EVFaLa4BLfL6fpdEsX0iknfZz77ZkP4bwG5GbYiqM!aHxYDnzmBmAfU//GcXjBiQvrR+mYQMwUnb4AkTBrmwfrFz41BuBLxOEMz+3n6WGUIeWNwnX6LA==
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: 5461

FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/24 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.
>> 
> 
> Which is what the bump stock facilitates.

Yes, it facilitates multiple trigger functions in rapid succession, and
since it's multiple functions, not a single function, it falls outside the
definition of machine gun in the Act.
> 
> Fuck what they decided on bump stocks. They turn single shot guns into 
> machine guns

The Court didn't turn anything into anything. They clearly said Congress
can regulate machine guns and can even include bump stocks in the
definition if it collectively so desires. But the Court clarified that
Congress is the *only* body that can do this. BATF can't do it for them.