Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

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.