Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 18:37:58 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <v4i2m6$30bm2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <P8OcnfwhaeSXPiT-nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 20:37:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4d8ae20adeef171faffdef8f2bfb8529";
	logging-data="3157698"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19K/9LNd5xyJlPfBdrbMc5KB9ZWbNxzQ8E="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rGhD6YRFKEiQkVhuD3RoUjxKoU8=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 2548

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/5th-circuit-court-of-appeals-strikes-down-trump-bump-stock-ban/

>A Trump administration ban on bump stocks-- devices that enable a shooter
>to rapidly fire multiple rounds from semi-automatic weapons after an
>initial trigger pull-- was struck down Friday by a federal appeals court in
>New Orleans.

>The ban was instituted after a gunman perched in a high-rise hotel using
>bump stock-equipped weapons massacred dozens of people in Las Vegas in
>2017. Gun rights advocates have challenged it in multiple courts. The 13-3
>ruling at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals is the latest on the issue,
>which is likely to be decided at the Supreme Court.

This case was appealed to the Supreme Court by the government, and accepted
because of the circuit split. Garland v. Cargill

Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, siding against the
government and in favor of Michael Cargill, the gun store owner who had
turned in two bump stocks to ATF to have standing to sue to have the
regulation overturned.

The case hinged upon statutory interpretation and not the Second
Amendment. In fact, in Alito's concurrence, he wrote that Congress could
amend the 1934 law banning the use of a rapid-fire device with a
semiautomatic rifle and there would not be any material difference.

I still don't see how the shooter can aim a semiautomatic weapon so
equipped, since subsequent trigger pulls are during recoil.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-bump-stock-ban/
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-bump-stocks-b3bd1b4163d78514a6d5acc5b44c8b3d

>. . .