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: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:48:27 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <v572pb$3rn1f$3@dont-email.me>
References: <atropos-13D763.17305115062024@news.giganews.com> <atropos-4D6141.22022320062024@news.giganews.com> <v56q4g$3qg7n$1@dont-email.me> <lfmdnR_OQrVsbOv7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:48:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38586e4b900edccc9e578beee4abad4e";
	logging-data="4054063"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2rnz1/ziTJ3KNBzkC1C0MnB6Ywd9f+TM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QZAqRANXW5EgHFT9ld/WWquDcCo=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 5093

BTR1701  <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 1:02 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <v52n7s$2v630$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 6/20/24 9:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <v52ki8$2qv7o$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Which isn't the standard under the law. The law's standard is a "single
>>>>> function of the trigger". As I said above, if you shoot 100 rounds with
>>>>> a bump stock, you've got 100 functions of the trigger, not a single
>>>>> function of the trigger.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A semi-auto rifle physically can't fire more than one round with a
>>>>> single function of the trigger. It's impossible for a semi-auto rifle to
>>>>> meet the definition of "machine gun" under the NFA.
>>>> 
>>>> You keep glossing over the fact that both machine guns and bump stocks
>>>> require the same action.
>>> 
>>> No, I'm focusing on the one thing that legally matters: a single
>>> function of the trigger. It's literally impossible for a semi-auto rifle
>>> to fire more than one round with a single function of the trigger. The
>>> trigger mechanism must complete a full cycle of function for every round
>>> that leaves the barrel.
>>> 
>> 
>> Which is what the bump stock facilitates.
>
>Yes, it facilitates multiple trigger functions in rapid succession, and
>since it's multiple functions, not a single function, it falls outside the
>definition of machine gun in the Act.
>> 
>> Fuck what they decided on bump stocks. They turn single shot guns into 
>> machine guns
>
>The Court didn't turn anything into anything. They clearly said Congress
>can regulate machine guns and can even include bump stocks in the
>definition if it collectively so desires. But the Court clarified that
>Congress is the *only* body that can do this. BATF can't do it for them.

Congress can write such a law without it being unconstitutional under
the Second Amendment. That's the message from Alito's concurrence.

The message to the idiots with massive reading comprehension problems:
It is possible to carefully draft laws regulating firearm use and possession
that are constitutional.