Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

On 6/20/24 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v52k31$2qnl3$10@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 6/18/24 9:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

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

 

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.

 

Again, you say "reset" to avoid telling the truth. The stock does the
trigger action, obviating the need to have separate trigger pulls

 A semi-auto rifle physically cannot fire without a separate trigger pull
and reset for every round. Which means it's not a machine gun per the
Act.
 

This is the point. A bump stock emulates a machine gun, making the
output the same (or close enough) to be covered by the intent of the law.

 We don't decide cases on intent. (If we did, there'd be no question that
abortion is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, for example, since
the Founders never intended for it to be when they wrote the
Constitution.)
 Congress passed a law defining what a machine gun is. Anything that does
not meet that definition is not a machine gun and does not fall under
the restrictions applied to machine guns. Even the BATF agreed that bump
stocks didn't create "machine guns" as defined by the Act until the
Vegas shooting happened and they were politically pressured into doing a
complete 180 on their previous determination.
 And if Congress wants to change the law to incorporate emulation into
the definition of a machine gun, it can do it at any time. BATF,
however, can't do it for them. They don't have the authority under the
Constitution to make or amend law.
 

Jesus Fucking Christ, talk to a lawyer sometime.  A real one, who can read.
Cornell Law School:

In Administrative Law, courts also have the authority to determine legislative intent for the purposes of statutory construction. In doing so, courts primarily look to the language of the statute as understood when codified. It is worth noting that courts sometimes look to omissions of certain language as an indication of legislative intent as well. Courts also consider circumstances under which the statute was enacted, purpose, and legislative history.

Moron.
--
On May 30, 2024 Donald J. Trump was unanimously convicted on 34 felony counts in New York City... so I took this picture in my side yard.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC Bible  25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0