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 22:09:45 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <v52nd9$2v630$7@dont-email.me>
References: <P8OcnfwhaeSXPiT-nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v4i2m6$30bm2$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-25D624.12335314062024@news.giganews.com>
 <v4s1f8$1c3jr$4@dont-email.me>
 <17da57f2cae5dafc$3537$35484$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com>
 <v52kse$2qv7o$6@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-9D0347.18414220062024@news.giganews.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 04:09:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="135701bad7255964217cc25f17b69a9f";
	logging-data="3119200"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+c3rQQo+Le/RuUdWAsjdqf"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WXIVBBeVooCP7yL8feouVJGo3Ds=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <atropos-9D0347.18414220062024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 5513

On 6/20/24 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <v52kse$2qv7o$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/19/24 3:41 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 6/18/24 8:18 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/24 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-d
>>>>>>> own-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.
>>>>
>>>> It was struck down by an illegitimate and corrupt court because they
>>>> were paid to strike it down.
>>>>
>>>> Once you get that, all rulings become clear.
>>>
>>> Isn't it queer how when I pointed him to Harvard Law Professor Laurence
>>> Tribe's explanation of the situation Thanny shut his fucking mouth on
>>> the subject?
>>>
>> He doesn't have a good rebuttal because there isn't one.
>> Everybody who uses common sense understands what the law was designed to do.
>>
>> Bump stocks are a newer technology than the law didn't foresee... but it
>> doesn't take a law professor to understand the intent.
> 
> That's why we have a Congress that can amend statutes to take into
> account changes in technology. They do it all the time with the things
> like the internet. They can do it with the National Firearms Act, also.
> 
> Your delusions (and Hutt's) aside, courts don't decide technical matters
> of law based on intent. Legislative history is only a tool to resolve
> ambiguity. There's no ambiguity here. The statute's text is both
> extremely detailed and clear. Neither the Judicial Branch nor the
> Executive Branch have the constitutional authority to make or amend
> statutory law. Only the Legislative Branch can do that.
> 
> This is something most of us learned in grade school. Apparently Effa
> and the BATF were in a coma that day.
> 

Aren't you guys fond of saying "just enforce the laws as written instead 
of making new ones"?

-- 
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