Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

In article <v4tfnl$1ons5$2@dont-email.me>,
 moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 6/18/2024 9:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v4t1nu$1ig6v$2@dont-email.me>,
  moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 6/18/2024 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v4s1kl$1c3jr$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 6/15/24 8:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,
    trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>

On 6/15/24 11:46 AM, moviePig wrote:

On 6/15/2024 4:20 AM, trotsky wrote:

On 6/14/24 5:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

The Federal Firearms Act of 1934

From wiki:
>
The current National Firearms Act (NFA) defines a number of
categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively
known as NFA firearms and include the following:
>
Machine guns:
"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.
The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such
weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively,
or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in
converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of
parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are
in the possession or under the control of a person."[10]

>
So, bump-stocks are patently a "workaround" for a law whose
intent is patently obvious. Not exactly a triumph of sanity.

>
"A work around" is accurate. And the spirit of the law is far more
important, obviously, than the letter of the law

>
Oh, cool! I see Hutt the Fuck-Up Fairy has visited us again!
>
No, Hutt, you're unsurprisingly about as absolutely wrong as you
can be yet again.
>
The letter of the law is obviously paramount in the context of
jurisprudential determination as evidenced by the 1000-page statutes
we have coming out of Congress, millions of pages of administrative
regulations, and the multi-page click-thrus of tiny and near-
hieroglyphic legalese that you have to agree to just to use a
piece of software.
>
If all we needed to concern ourselves with was a law's "spirit", then
none of that would be necessary.
>
I'd elaborate further but I don't have the time or the crayons to
explain it to you. Jeezus, Hutt, if I wanted to kill myself, I'd climb
your ego and jump to your IQ.
>

And how does using a bump stock differ from a fully automatic machine
gun?

>
With a bump stock, for every round fired, a separate trigger pull
occurs.
>
With a machine gun, one one trigger pull is required to fire multiple
rounds.
>
Also, the rate of fire of a bump stock-equipped rifle is significantly
slower than a rifle firing on full-auto.

>
So, this 15-sec. video is a lie?
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brrecvXhRVc

 
I don't know what you're talking about. You can clearly see the bump
device using the recoil (and Newton's Third Law) to reset the trigger
after every round.

 
What I'm seeing is a NOT "significantly slower" rate of fire.

The bump device I used produce a fast rate of fire but not as fast as
full-auto rifle. Perhaps this is a different model that works more
efficiently.

Regardless, the law passed by Congress did not differentiate "machine
gun" from other guns by how fast it shoots, so the rate of fire is
actually irrelevant to the issue.