This sucks. This is leaning further into the Major Questions Doctrine that SCOTUS has been pushing, where agencies and their actually knowledgeable, employed scientists and technical experts, have no real control over regulatory policies, and instead are beholden to Congress and judges to decide e.g. how many ppm of a chemical is safe for people to drink.

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    They didn’t make owning shoes a felony. Rich of you too accuse ME of arguing in bad faith in the same breath you say that.

    If you use a string to make a reciprocating charging handle pull the trigger as it returns to battery after firing, why is that less “legitimate” in converting the gun into automatic firing than using an auto-sear? In both cases, the gun fires multiple times with a single pull of the trigger by a person.

      • t3rmit3@beehaw.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        we have determined that the string itself is not a machinegun, whether or not there are loops tied on the ends. However, when the string is added to a semiautomatic firearm as you proposed in order to increase the cycling rate of that rifle, the result is a firearm that fires automatically and consequently would be classified as a machinegun.

        So no, gun owners with shoes are not felons, unless they combine those 2 things to make a machinegun. Obviously.