jackstar7
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2009
- 11,679
- 1,944
- 126
Why do you think that is?actually many of the current laws enumerate specific weapons
Why do you think that is?actually many of the current laws enumerate specific weapons
Why do you think that is?
actually many of the current laws enumerate specific weapons
Some laws do, but laws, in general, do not have to. It is a false statement to say that we must define all these things narrowly to make a law about them.
Interesting inference.from the list in maryland i would infer that the writers are idiots and do not know a thing about firearms
but without a definition, its open to interpretation by whomever. and that interpretation can change any time.
You are correct in that common law is a living law who's interpretation changes with societal norms. When our Constitution was written implied terms were good enough, however, today we require express terms in our contracts/laws. This opens up many legal loopholes for interpretation. We need comprehensive express terms when it comes to the governance of firearms.That is a feature, not a bug. The law is a living thing and is interpreted by society. Laws react to the situation they are used in. Any law overly specific is apt to be outdated quickly. We outlaw .225 ammo and .2249 ammo comes out that is legal.
Small and light enough to be easier to carry than the common battle rifles in use.Define short - how many inches?
Define light - how many pounds/ounces
Define small - less than .50? .30?
Define high - >5? 10? 20?
Define effective - .5 MOA? 1? 2?
Define quick to change - 1 second? 5 seconds
More work to be done. Good luck.
No, not "whomever", the fucking judicial system. You know, like the SCOTUS. Good laws are made specifically to be interpreted to meet future needs. It's part of the checks and balances our government is based on.but without a definition, its open to interpretation by whomever. and that interpretation can change any time.
Interesting inference.
I'd lean that the industry pushes for those specifics so that they can then begin to work around them with little issue for their customers.
How about MURDER and ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON are always illegal? That should cover 100% of shootings we are trying to put a stop to.You are correct in that common law is a living law who's interpretation changes with societal norms. When our Constitution was written implied terms were good enough, however, today we require express terms in our contracts/laws. This opens up many legal loopholes for interpretation. We need comprehensive express terms when it comes to the governance of firearms.
No, not "whomever", the fucking judicial system. You know, like the SCOTUS. Good laws are made specifically to be interpreted to meet future needs. It's part of the checks and balances our government is based on.
I didn't think the NRA or the gun industry had much to do with generating the Maryland list being referred to?Interesting inference.
I'd lean that the industry pushes for those specifics so that they can then begin to work around them with little issue for their customers.
I didn't think the NRA or the gun industry had much to do with generating the Maryland list being referred to?
And nobody could challenge an ATF regulation in a court of law? Checks and balances, my friend.nope, it would most likely be subject to an atf regulation, you know like bump stocks
Sorry, how do you guys know that industry didn't influence the legislation?
Also, do you think that's standard for legislation that affects an industry, that they don't lobby and have a say in how it gets crafted?
Uh huh. I'm guessing you're not going to their BBQs either.you dont know mike miller or brian frosh very well
Uh huh. I'm guessing you're not going to their BBQs either.
Can you answer my questions?
that was the answer
those two wrote the bill, no way in hell they would let the nra or any gun lobby into thier office
That's how we got the war on drugs.I’ll say it again. Help craft something sensible or someone else will do it without your input.
Personally I’d be very comfortable letting lawmakers decide what can or can’t be sold.
I’ll say it again. Help craft something sensible or someone else will do it without your input.
Personally I’d be very comfortable letting lawmakers decide what can or can’t be sold.
If the gun industry was consulted on the banning of their product, it was only so the authors of the bill could laugh and laugh and do exactly the opposite.Sorry, how do you guys know that industry didn't influence the legislation?
Also, do you think that's standard for legislation that affects an industry, that they don't lobby and have a say in how it gets crafted?
That's how we got the war on drugs.
you sure about that
even though i cant buy an ak47
i can by an ar10 no problem
Why can't you buy an AK-47? It's just has be be semi-auto only, right?you sure about that
even though i cant buy an ak47
i can by an ar10 no problem