Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

On 6/15/24 11:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v4llgt$3s90d$1@dont-email.me>,
  moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 6/15/2024 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.

>
Unfortunately, your "letter of the law" is a false god, a pipe dream.
Because any word's meaning invariably depends on one or more *other*
words, and so on ...you eventually need someone to "know" (i.e., to
*interpret*) whatever basic thing someone else has tried to say.

 Even if true, that doesn't mean a law's "spirit" takes precedence over
its text.

This made me laugh out loud since the law is all about precedence.  And an anonymous dipshit who didn't even pass the bar telling us what the precedence should be or is literally laughable, far more than literally driving off a cliff is.