Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 18:46:54 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <v4ih8u$336lr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <P8OcnfwhaeSXPiT-nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v4i2m6$30bm2$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-25D624.12335314062024@news.giganews.com>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 00:46:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dd9bb2db9879aa6ebd4bce2e4282bbd1";
	logging-data="3250875"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+AyKb6uhZ3ZoOk07RWTSRr0NgZaeA8ozI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TvwjOnBUa6dqsWQz7dBsjwNN+O8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <atropos-25D624.12335314062024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 5405

On 6/14/2024 3:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <v4i2m6$30bm2$1@dont-email.me>,
>   "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> 
>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/5th-circuit-court-of-appeals-strikes-down-t
>>> rump-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.
> 
> This is great news. The ban was struck down not on some technicality,
> but on the basis that the law says what it says and the BATF can't just
> decide it wants to 'interpret it' to mean something entirely different
> to conform to the politics of the moment and make instant felons out of
> hundreds of thousands of citizens who legally bought expensive equipment
> that the government refuses to reimburse them for while at the same time
> requiring them to surrender it to law enforcement. (Seems like there
> would have been a great 5th Amendment claim here as well as the 2nd
> Amendment claim.) The Court ruled that the BATF has no authority to make
> or amend law. Only to enforce the laws as passed by Congress.
> 
> This is the slap down we've been looking for, not just for BATF, but a
> whole host administrative agencies who have been acting like
> mini-legislatures for way too long now.
> 
> Sotomayor is getting all the love from the corporate legacy media today
> for her unhinged dissent: "When I see a bird that walks like a duck,
> swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck," she
> says.
> 
> Well, Sonia, coots, grebes, and loons are all birds that look like ducks
> and are commonly mistaken for ducks but they're indisputably not ducks.
> 
> Words matter and it's rather appalling that a Supreme Court justice of
> all people would insist otherwise.
> 
> Congress has defined "machine gun" under U.S. law and only Congress gets
> to change it.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> The difference is that Congress didn't amend the statute. ATF did and
> ATF has no legal authority to do so.
> 
> Meanwhile, as his son was being convicted of violating federal gun laws,
> Biden was ranting incoherently before a pro-confiscation group "Who in
> god's name needs a magazine that can hold 200 shells?"
> 
> Pretty sure no one's asking for that, Joe. But regardless, it's called
> the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. We citizens aren't required
> to demonstrate a need to the government before we exercise our
> guaranteed rights.
> 
>> I still don't see how the shooter can aim a semiautomatic weapon so
>> equipped, since subsequent trigger pulls are during recoil.
> 
> I fired a bump-equipped rifle once. It's not any harder to aim than a
> firing a fully-automatic rifle. They both tend to ride up while firing
> and the shooter needs to compensate for that. You do that by firing 2-4
> round bursts and reacquiring the target, not the mag-emptying spray of
> bullets that fill Hollywood movies and TV shows.

Where can I find the official Congressional definition of "machine gun"?