Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 21:10:36 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <s6077jpsl679hmse4jdbsf9eg38a9pf6qt@4ax.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 03:10:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7939c73536e7c7b786a96a079ab02f7a";
	logging-data="2360769"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18C4ETnl01KD+3xU/Ro/Vi3G+MMznrktPg="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bH3F9oEENLoo25UmRzysLvsOTak=
Bytes: 8223

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:
>
>> 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.

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.