Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

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.