Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/22/24 11:30 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/20/24 10:18 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v52knn$2qv7o$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 6/20/24 5:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Jun 20, 2024 at 12:32:11 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 6/20/2024 12:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v51ik8$2kkd7$2@dont-email.me>,
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 6/19/2024 11:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

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

>

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".
>
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.

>
Did you look at the 15-sec. video I posted? I submit that what you're
seeing for *both* guns is a single function of the trigger *finger* --

>
Even if true, the statute is silent on what the finger is doing, so
it's irrelevant.

>

A human finger is implied by "a single function of the trigger".

>
No, it's the functioning of the trigger that's at issue, not what causes it
to function. (Other things can cause a trigger pull besides a finger.)

>

So describe the intent of the law.  Go ahead... what was the law
designed to do? To regulate and prevent.
>
Have at it.

>
I don't care what a bunch of politicians (all with their own agendas)
intended. When I look to what's required of me legally, I only ask what
does the law prohibit me from doing.
>
When I drive, I don't spend time wondering about all the intents of the
various lawmakers that set the speed limit at 70MPH. I only care that I
can drive up to 70MPH without having to worry about a ticket.
>
If we decided court cases based on intent, then a talented shooter would
indeed have to worry about registering her index finger with the
government as a "machine gun" if she could fire fast enough to mimic a
machine gun. Something that even you dismissed as silly elsewhere in
thread.

>
They decide law based on intent all the time.  It's a staple of the system.

>
Cool! Let's go with intent, then. Which means all those millions of
illegals pretending to be refugees and just reciting the magic words to
game the system can be summarily denied and deported because the intent of
the refugee law was never to allow millions of people who don't qualify as
refugees to game and overwhelm the system and flood unchecked into the
country.
>
Regardless of what the law actually says, its intent was never to create
the current border crisis we're currently experiencing, so we can ignore
what's written and just go with intent.
>
I'm really starting to warm up to The Law According to Effa!
>

What do you think the Supreme Court uses to judge whether a law is
constitutional?

>
Umm... the Constitution.

>
Ummm... pass the border bill your side wrote.

 No need. We already have the intent of the Immigration and Naturalization
Act!