Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

On 6/19/24 10:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <s6077jpsl679hmse4jdbsf9eg38a9pf6qt@4ax.com>,
  shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> 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:
>

On 6/19/2024 3:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v4v8jq$23o16$1@dont-email.me>,
   moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 6/18/2024 10:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

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

 

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.

>
Yes, we've already established that a determined judiciary can do an
end-run around even the clearest legislative intent.

>
They didn't end-run anything. They only reiterated-- since our
government seems to have lost its way and needs a reminder-- that
Congress is the only body granted the authority by the Constitution
to legislate in this country, not administrative agencies like
BATF, and if Congress wants to change the definition of "machine
gun" to incorporate bump stocks into it, it can do so at any time.
However, BATF has no authority to do it for them.

>
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've seen people who can pull a trigger all on their own pretty damn
fast-- certainly at a speed that most hoplophobes would consider
"machine gun adjacent".

Holy fuck that's a great point.  Now all you have to do is marry these people with the concept with mass killing and you're all set.  More proof that mental masturbation is all you and your brain full of dogshit have.

Should we make it illegal for a human to pull a trigger faster than a
certain rate? Or force anyone who can do it accurately faster than a
certain rate to register their finger with the BATF as a "machine gun"?
 

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.