Isn't it that the trigger is squeezed once and the recoil causes the crock to bounce back which results in another trigger action? Even though there is only one action by the shooter, it would seem to be multiple trigger actions.
GroundedGator
joined 6 months ago
They don't need to ban specific parts, and in fact they shouldn't. They could ban anything designed to accelerate rate of fire.
That's exactly what they should do. But SCOTUS seems to think that the bump stock cannot be banned because there is no law about bump stocks specifically.
The ban on bump stocks was implemented using the Firearms' Owners Protection Act of 1986. Which was signed into law by Reagan (funny how a failed assassination will change things).
The text at issue is
SEC. 109. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT. (a) Section 58450)) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(b)) is amended by striking out "any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun," and inserting in lieu thereof "any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,"
IMO the majority in this decision is choosing to blatantly ignore the text of the act which was clearly chosen to future-proof for any advancement which would result in an effortless high rate of fire such as bump stock and super safety. Instead they are insisting that Congress must amend the law to include specific parts which of course is a losing battle as there will always be a new part that achieves an effortless high rate of fire.
Now where one could argue that this ruling is correct is the accepted definition of a machinegun requires a single trigger action.
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
Personally I think the laws should be amended to define weapons and munitions by their result (high or continuous rate of fire) instead of their form or function. As it stands, someone could create a weapon that simply fires continuously but does not resemble a gun in any other way. Would such a weapon be a machinegun if it doesn't even have a trigger?
I think the dissenting opinion was more inline with the intent of FOPA.
Way too light. 20 year minimum.
I hate you.
I just want as time where election results were respected and transfer of power came without violence.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/19/trump-campaign-election-monitoring-00153217
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-rnc-vote-monitor-election-integrity-rcna148557
They will delay certification of results where they can. They will do everything to steal this election.
While the cop is outside after hitting update on the app.
IMO we need to stop humanizing robots. There is no reason for a robot to be human in form. Form should match function. Furthermore, a humanoid robots elicit feelings from people that are not helpful or healthy. There are people who might ~~advise~~ abuse a robot because it isn't an actual person, it doesn't mean that their abuse is less mentally ill. They should be viewed as a machine and treated as such, no better than a car.
Not saying it's justified to bully anyone, but maybe the fruit has rotted with the tree.
A more hopeful part of me believes that she's been saddled with a toxic family and has suffered for it. And now she'll be able to escape and be free.
I meant that the crew would not count as passengers. I know nothing about fuel usage, but let's say a trip is going to use 200lbs of fuel. 1 passenger would give a ratio of 200:1, add 6 crew, the ratio is still 200:1. The only way to have lower tax is to have more passengers on the flight.
Well said.
I grew up playing soccer on a coed team. At a certain age you could be picked or tryout for a more advanced league. Up until highschool we were devided by skill not gender and I have no problem admitting there were more than a few girls that were much more skilled than I was.