Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!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, 21 Jun 2024 18:24:48 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <v54ujg$3bnc4$4@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>
 <v52nd9$2v630$7@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-F1A6BB.22050420062024@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, 22 Jun 2024 00:24:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a2fbad305af87c7b41015176a1534a8";
	logging-data="3530116"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19tMxQg913GqJXFCs4cgJawK3KxcoZVTVE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rx5L2eevWUaKd8OjhUAoP3btc9Q=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <atropos-F1A6BB.22050420062024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 2938

On 6/21/2024 1:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <v52nd9$2v630$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/20/24 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <v52kse$2qv7o$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
> 
>>>> 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"?
> 
> I'm still fond of that. I'm perfectly happy with bumpers being legal.
> I'm cool with enforcing the NFA as is; I don't want any new laws here.

You'd be perfectly happy with machine guns being legal, wouldn't you?