• slickgoat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    You went into a ton of detail, thank you. But it is meaningless under the original definition of the act.

    “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.”

    A bump stock modifies the frame of the gun which converts it into a fully automatic weapon. Don’t just get stuck on the trigger part of the action. The act covers everything, you just can’t cherry pick a single clause and ignore everything else. Otherwise they just might make you into one of Trump’s Supreme Court justices.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      No, it doesn’t. That’s what I’m getting at. Look at how they define a machine gun in the act. It requires that the gun fire more than once per operation of the trigger (this is also what it means for a firearm to be automatic). A bump stock facilitates operating the trigger again more quickly, but does not fire more then once per operation of the trigger.

      You’re not looking at the definition used in the law but deciding that anything that lets you shoot faster counts.