Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:00:28 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <v57agt$3tgec$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>
 <v572pb$3rn1f$3@dont-email.me>
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 22:00:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a2fbad305af87c7b41015176a1534a8";
	logging-data="4112844"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+hwIRhcxNNb/IphaR7mBI0ud+MMNtBgs="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bFpuobAgfQsynfUQiOrAKnQmmRc=
In-Reply-To: <v572pb$3rn1f$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5646

On 6/22/2024 1:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 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.

No.  Against a determined judiciary, it's *not* possible.

(And the present instance may eventually become a textbook example.)