what is....

[jackstar7]

actually many of the current laws enumerate specific weapons

Why do you think that is?

 

[mdram]

Why do you think that is?

from the list in maryland i would infer that the writers are idiots and do not know a thing about firearms

 

[SMOGZINN]

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.

 

[mdram]

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.

but without a definition, its open to interpretation by whomever. and that interpretation can change any time.

 

[jackstar7]

from the list in maryland i would infer that the writers are idiots and do not know a thing about firearms

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.

 

[SMOGZINN]

but without a definition, its open to interpretation by whomever. and that interpretation can change any time.

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 Any law overly specific is apt to be outdated quickly.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.

 

[Puffnstuff]

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 Any law overly specific is apt to be outdated quickly.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.

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.

 

[Paladin3]

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.

Small and light enough to be easier to carry than the common battle rifles in use.
Higher capacity than the common battle rifles in use.
Effective enough to be lethal on a human sized target out to at common engagement distances.
Faster than, say, loading an 8-round stripper clip into an M1 Garand.

I can't give you exact inches of length at which one weapon is a scary assault rifle and another is not. I'm not afraid of guns based on specifications. They are all capable of being used safely or misused terribly. I wouldn't like being shot with a musket anymore than I would being shot with an Uzi, but regardless of which weapon I was shot with I would put the blame for the crime on the finger that pulled the trigger.

I've got it! We can reduce gun violence by banning trigger fingers! Any reasonable person should be willing to give up their fingers to ensure the safety of our children!

 

[Paladin3]

but without a definition, its open to interpretation by whomever. and that interpretation can change any time.

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.

 

[brycejones]

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.

That's a little deep for the poster you are responding to.

 

[Paladin3]

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.

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.

 

[mdram]

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.

nope, it would most likely be subject to an atf regulation, you know like bump stocks

 

[Paladin3]

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?

 

[mdram]

I didn't think the NRA or the gun industry had much to do with generating the Maryland list being referred to?

they didnt. the liberals that run this state wouldnt have that

 

[Paladin3]

nope, it would most likely be subject to an atf regulation, you know like bump stocks

And nobody could challenge an ATF regulation in a court of law? Checks and balances, my friend.

 

[jackstar7]

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?

 

[mdram]

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?

you dont know mike miller or brian frosh very well

 

[jackstar7]

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?

 

[mdram]

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

 

[Fanatical Meat]

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

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.

 

[Paladin3]

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.

That's how we got the war on drugs.

 

[mdram]

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.

you sure about that
even though i cant buy an ak47
i can by an ar10 no problem

 

[Paladin3]

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?

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.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That's how we got the war on drugs.

I’ll take do some over do nothing

you sure about that
even though i cant buy an ak47
i can by an ar10 no problem

I’m very comfortable letting lawmakers figure something out.

 

[Paladin3]

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?

But I agree with you that the lists are often made by folks who have no idea what they are looking at. Just like most anti-gun folks never bother to educate themselves on the subject they feel so passionate about. Passion always trumps knowledge.

"Guns are bad, M'kay."