Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:21:12 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <v52ki8$2qv7o$2@dont-email.me>
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>
Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 03:21:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="135701bad7255964217cc25f17b69a9f";
	logging-data="2981112"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/giyn6Xf6l8Lm89PZjUR+7"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EgvkZ6pVXvd+uKNsrDEStskme50=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <s6077jpsl679hmse4jdbsf9eg38a9pf6qt@4ax.com>
Bytes: 9113

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:
>>
>>> 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.
> 

Both still require the same action.  A single trigger pull, with 
constant pressure.  The law doesn't specify anything more than "a single 
function of the trigger."

How are either different?

-- 
On May 30, 2024 Donald J. Trump was unanimously convicted on 34 felony 
counts in New York City... so I took this picture in my side yard.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC 
Bible  25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0