re: #187 Hecuba’s daughter

IANAL I had been persuaded yesterday by lawyers who explained how the gun decision was technically right. But after more consideration, I now totally disagree with the decision because it essentially means that you cannot use logic to extend a law when technology changes. It neuters the regulatory state. Congress is dysfunctional now — think of what it means if every little change requires a new law, instead of just a tweak to a regulation or a slight amendment to existing rules. True originalism would have meant that the bump stock rule would be legal because of the intent of the original law limiting access to machine guns, but that’s not what the Federalist Society hacks on SCOTUS want.

If the law defined machine guns by their rate of fire then it would apply to bump stocks. They instead relied on bullets fired per trigger pull. So devices that only fire 1 round per trigger pull, but allow you to pull the trigger 10 times per second aren’t covered.