Path: ...!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: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 22:43:25 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <v5fv8e$1uphg$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v4ih8u$336lr$1@dont-email.me> <v4kgh9$3i0t8$1@dont-email.me>
 <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>
 <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>
 <v52kf9$2qv7o$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-3C4CB7.18492520062024@news.giganews.com>
 <v52nan$2v630$5@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-B6CEA3.21594220062024@news.giganews.com>
 <v56q7b$3qg7n$2@dont-email.me>
 <lfmdnR7OQrVsbOv7nZ2dnZfqn_sAAAAA@giganews.com>
 <v57dlt$3u7ea$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-B6487E.12432625062024@news.giganews.com>
 <v5ff4v$1ns3d$6@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-5C3740.15491725062024@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: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 04:43:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d2d90a48413b38a40b2d22a00d23c588";
	logging-data="2057776"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/yCv7emBZIwNwDufUyfF8166Z+904bNqQ="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3/nVsunaB16hBpataEVAPQCw4Sc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <atropos-5C3740.15491725062024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 3919

On 6/25/2024 6:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <v5ff4v$1ns3d$6@dont-email.me>,
>   moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/25/2024 3:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <v57dlt$3u7ea$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>    moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2024 11:46 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:59 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Literally not. The firing mechanism inside the gun requires
>>>>>>> the trigger go through its full cycle of function (depressed,
>>>>>>> released, and reset) for every round fired in a semi-auto rifle.
>>>>>>> It's only activated once for an entire burst in a machine gun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't care about the mechanism.
>>>>>
>>>>> And no one else cares what you care about. The law cares about the
>>>>> mechanism, which is what matters and is why courts around the nation
>>>>> don't call up Effa to see what he does and doesn't care about.
>>>>
>>>> The law (SCOTUS) cares about the mechanism only as a fig leaf.
>>>
>>> You do realize that the Court wasn't even asked to rule-- nor did it--
>>> on the question of bump stocks, right?
>>>
>>> The only question was whether BATF had the legal authority to
>>> criminalize them or if they were unconstitutionally encroaching on the
>>> powers of the Legislative Branch by doing so.
>>
>> A distinction without a distinction...
> 
> No, the subject matter of the rule is pretty much irrelevant. It could
> just as easily have been a HUD rule expanding the definition of "single
> family home" beyond what Congress specified in a statute. The legal
> issue is the same-- whether an administrative agency of the Executive
> Branch is exceeding its constitutional authority by usurping the power
> of the Legislative Branch.

The right-wing's aim was to protect bump-stocks.  Mission accomplished.