BIGUN

Neither did Rush Limbaugh till he did. That's gonna be an easy win, Jerry. There's always parochial school.

I've been accused of being the illegitimate child of Vin Diesel and Dwayne, "The Rock."

Attached is a copy of the SCOTUS ruling and I'm scratching my head here. Turns out, the ATF filed the suit not as a part that converts the weapon to fully automatic but as, "Held: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b)." page 2 JUSTICE ALITO, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court because there is simply no other way to read the statutory language. There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it. Page 24 The whole thing was a waste of time and money. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. Starting on page 25. The most important “function” of a “trigger” is what it enables a shooter to do; what “force or mechanism” it sets “in action.” 11 Oxford English Dictionary, at 357. A “single function of the trigger” more naturally means a single initiation of the firing sequence. Regardless of what is happening in the internal mechanics of a firearm, if a shooter must activate the trigger only a single time to initiate a firing sequence that will shoot “automatically more than one shot,” that firearm is a “machinegun.” §5845(b)." *Today’s decision to reject that ordinary understanding will have deadly consequences. Page 42. Throughout this document, SCOTUS is telling Congress ways to make changes. Unfortunately, most will throw it in the pile of "Over and Done" and not actually read it to know how to change things. I can't help but wonder why the experts at ATF are not using this information to present to Congress and/or if a weapon SME could not approach SCOTUS and say. "If Congress amended the law to include X if that would please the court in this matter. Ya know, to proactively work towards a solution, rather than a recurring game of volleyball - serve it up and spike." 22-976_e29g.pdf

If one does not have a certain level of hoplophobia - they're the ones to be afraid of.

That is the technicality by which the ATF lost the case. SCOTUS followed the letter of the law. Congress could change the law to include cyclic rate. M16: 700-800 rds/minute. Bump Stock on an AR-15: 300-800 rds/minute. And, we're discussing how many pulls, or how a trigger is pulled versus . . . Well, not classifying all weapons under NFA. Congress could do that. But, they don't/won't. No matter whom controls the house. Why is that? </rhetorical question>

I'm still not sure how it wasn't classified under the NFA. And to your point, Congress could easily do this. The term “machinegun” means 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. 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845#:~:text=The term “machinegun” means any,single function of the trigger.

You're not wrong, Joe.

I don't agree with with the ruling. The reason the Judges didn't invoke the second was because it technically wasn't a gun issue, but a peripheral issue. In February 2018, Trump issued a memorandum instructing the Attorney General “to dedicate all available resources to … propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.” In response to that direction the Department reviewed more than 186,000 public comments and made the decision to make clear that the term “machinegun” as used in the National Firearms Act (NFA), as amended, and Gun Control Act (GCA), as amended, includes all bump-stock-type devices that harness recoil energy to facilitate the continuous operation of a semiautomatic long gun after a single pull of the trigger. In 1986, the Firearm Owners’ Protections Act amended the NFA definition of “silencer” by adding combinations of parts for silencers and any part intended for use in the assembly or fabrication of a silencer. If one manufactures a collar that goes over the selector switch to press down the sear to make a weapon fully automatic, they must hold a manufacturers FFL and have the ATF categorize it within the NFA (Just as with silencers) wherein one can own it, but must go thru a lengthy process to own it about eight months later. Peripherals can be not so much banned, but become a controlled item. Someone slipped a gear by not making this that controlled item that requires NFA process.

First, thank you. I'd never heard of Kutta Joukowski and now have it bookmarked for additional required reading of all the theorems in the wiki page.

Help me understand why this was wrong. He was probably relying on Bernoulli's theorem which we all learned while getting our pilot's license. I wonder if he was implying the engines were needed to maintain lift.

Brent, you didn't read it to learn; you read it to find something that fits your narrative.

He was a victim whiner back in the 90's, so we can't be surprised that he's still one today.

As soon as you don't cite your source; everyone's spidey sense starts pegging out. Here's the IPCC's thoughts on the matter. Course it's a long read, so you'll probably dismiss it. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/ Everyone has areas of strengths and weaknesses. I am not a scientist and so; I have to rely on them pointing me in the right direction. From there, it requires a lot of reading and reflection. The point of this is; you're a guy that has done good things in this life. Ranger, MBA, good family, property investments, etc. But, this continued assault on global warming when all the data is contradictory; makes you an easy target. Brent, it's not like you're making a mistake. You continuously beat the same drum after everyone has cited sources to the contrary and then you act stunned they call you troll.

This is from the DoD's Standards of Conduct Office (They don't just point at the CFRs. One can call them and ask just to make sure they're not doing something wrong.) And not unlike our BSRs, it's written in someone else's blood. Back to the point at hand. Congress could enhance the CFRs and since the SC interprets and applies the law - then it applies to them also. contractors_in_federal_workplace.pdf

Maybe I'm not tracking. Private company to private company is company policy dependent. If private company to government employee then the CFR kicks in.

Numerous State & Federal contracts (on the civilian side) and never heard of that. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-2635

Got here. Permian Mass Extinction.

The justices adopted an ethics code in November, though it lacks a means of enforcement. The code treats travel, food and lodging as expenses rather than gifts, for which monetary values must be reported. Justices aren't required to attach a value to expenses. Democratic lawmakers are continuing to press legislation that would require the court to adopt a binding code of conduct and provide for investigations of alleged violations. https://www.npr.org/2024/06/08/g-s1-3565/clarence-thomas-discloses-trips-gop-donor There's no need for a "binding code of conduct." We had to abide by the CFRs. It would have been career/contract suicide to accept/offer a dinner to a government employee (COTR). That's what the CFR is about. If they found exceptions to the law, then be Congressional, modify the terminology in the code and ensure there are no exceptions. If it adds or subtracts to/from your personal income - it must be reported. Just my two cents. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.204

1. Sounds like you're talking about I=PAT 2. You address point 2 of Bill's post, but missed the part about, "if that's the only mitigation." or, 3. You're actually agreeing that we should do as much as possible, in every area, to reduce greenhouse emissions.

ahhhh. You like me. I'm all warm and fuzzy. Exactly.

^This. We should be looking forward. Not at retooling and upgrading the defense manufacturer's 70 year old arms inventory.

That was my thought process. Thanks. New information.

I think it could be done with a forty-percent cut. <Pulls out chair . . .> I'll take this one.

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that particular rail line.