Post #14603 by ges on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (2)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 2

In Garland v. Cargill (view here, 10 am ET), a gunshop owner is challenging a 2018 ban on bump stocks, arguing they don’t enable rifles to shoot multiple rounds “automatically” and “by a single function of the trigger” as per the government’s definition of machine guns, which are banned. The owner points to the ongoing physical pressure required on a barrel when using a bump stock, arguing the process is neither automatic nor a “single function of the trigger.” The government disagrees, pointing to a bump stock’s reliance on a gun’s recoil to trigger additional shots per a single press of the trigger.

Our 'well regulated' militia needs machine guns.

And maybe it's moot anyway. Apparently you can make your own bump stock: https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-make-a-bump-stock...

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (2)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.