Today's shooting in America thread

[Mr Kobayashi]

Then, why are they not illegal, Mr Law Degree?

I’m not even ATTEMPTING to parse the law, merely stating what is and isn’t being done to GET AROUND THE LAWS AS WRITTEN!

So, tell us ALL why there is a barrel length limit and why?

Then, tell us WHY it is illegal to have a firearm with a shorter barrel UNDER THE LAW!

I don’t WRITE OR INTERPRET the laws, I simply go by what being allowed in the courts, ATF desires notwithstanding.

Because there aren’t many Yanks on here, and even fewer desiring to get into gun discussions, it appears I become the focal point for Brit (and done Yank!) ire regarding the laws.

I don’t write them, I only adhere to them. Whatever YOU OR OTHERS think that makes me seems kind of personal.

As always, feel free to correct facts stated in error. However, your personal opinions, or the desires of the ATF seem irrelevant to the FACTS of the matter, don’t they?

Barrel length is just one criteria for whether something is a pistol, it's also the weakest criteria as proven by the AR-15 gun manufacturers taking the piss.

A rifle can have its barrel shortened and become a carbine.

These pro-gun lawyers are advising people about how to skirt the law and when a brace might fall within the classification as stock and therefore fall within the control of the ATF.

Do you think anyone can competently shoot a target with one of these weapons without a brace or a stock?

Pistol Braces for AR Pistols: A Gun Lawyer’s Take - Is This Even Legal?

Pistol braces for large pistols, including AR pistols are potentially problematic. A gun rights lawyer addresses the pistol brace head on.

lifebacklegal.com

I'm not going to give you a legal opinion on what poorly drafted or manipulated laws say is a pistol. But I will maintain the system has been gamed and it isn't a pistol, that much is clear.

None of the guns referred to in the article as pistols are pistols, all are designed to be held with both hands.

If I take a shotgun and turn it in to a sawn-off does it become a pistol?

Imagine there was a ban on mailing guns through the post, but I get around this ban by taking it apart and mailing each component to the same address in individual envelopes and then provide an idiot proof instructional video on how to assemble and on-call technical support.

Should I be let off because I never actually sent a whole firearm in the post?
The hypothetical lawmakers didn't have enough foresight that they discussed this issue but the pupose of the law was to prevent guns being available to buy via mail order, logically I should come within the scope of the offence.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Barrel length is just one criteria for whether something is a pistol, it's also the weakest criteria as proven by the AR-15 gun manufacturers taking the piss.

A rifle can have its barrel shortened and become a carbine.

These pro-gun lawyers are advising people about how to skirt the law and when a brace might fall within the classification as stock and therefore fall within the control of the ATF.

Do you think anyone can competently shoot a target with one of these weapons without a brace or a stock?

Pistol Braces for AR Pistols: A Gun Lawyer’s Take - Is This Even Legal?

Pistol braces for large pistols, including AR pistols are potentially problematic. A gun rights lawyer addresses the pistol brace head on.

lifebacklegal.com

I'm not going to give you a legal opinion on what poorly drafted or manipulated laws say is a pistol. But I will maintain the system has been gamed and it isn't a pistol, that much is clear.

None of the guns referred to in the article as pistols are pistols, all are designed to be held with both hands.

If I take a shotgun and turn it in to a sawn-off does it become a pistol?

Imagine there was a ban on mailing guns through the post, but I get around this ban by taking it apart and mailing each component to the same address in individual envelopes and then provide an idiot proof instructional video on how to assemble and on-call technical support.

Should I be let off because I never actually sent a whole firearm in the post?
The hypothetical lawmakers didn't have enough foresight that they discussed this issue but the pupose of the law was to prevent guns being available to buy via mail order, logically I should come within the scope of the offence.

You have strayed so far off the point of my original post, into a hypothetical, possibly even moral, argument about intent and logic.

I’ve never argued any of those things, so you have created your own argument and have convinced yourself of your own morality and indignation.

Indeed, you know the answer to your question, and know the answer is “Yes, you should be let off, if you didn’t mail anything illegal!”

Well done. You argued…with yourself…and lost! :-)

When is a pistol not a pistol? Your answer ignores the workarounds TO THE LAW, which means they ARE LEGALLY A PISTOL.

What you want to use it for is irrelevant!

Screaming into the abyss isn’t for everyone, but you’ve mastered it beautifully.

And, don’t read into my thoughts on this thread that your moralistic arguments fall on deaf ears with me. They do not. However, neither my morality nor yours are in question here, only the laws, how difficult they are to write, pass and adjudicate, and on which side of that line one wishes to be.

I’m going to choose “legal” every time. But, I don’t get to decide what that means, nor do you. We have 9 people in black robes who do that IF 2A looks like it is being challenged.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

You have strayed so far off the point of my original post, into a hypothetical, possibly even moral, argument about intent and logic.

I’ve never argued any of those things, so you have created your own argument and have convinced yourself of your own morality and indignation.

Indeed, you know the answer to your question, and know the answer is “Yes, you should be let off, if you didn’t mail anything illegal!”

Well done. You argued…with yourself…and lost!

:-)

It was an analogy.

Except I did mail something illegal when they are assembled into one unit. I wasn't running a business sending individual components, to order. Reading the law using the purposive approach* I should be sent to jail, it could even be argued I need a harsher sentence because of my efforts to escape punishment.

Allowing me to walk would be an absurdity, the law was designed to prevent the mail-order sale of guns. I am running a mail-order gun business.

*look it up, it is not the only way to read and apply the law but in the UK it is usually considered the best approach.

You kept on insisting it wasn't a pistol, none of us cares about the current legal definition of whether it is a pistol because it is a shitty law.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

It was an analogy.

Except I did mail something illegal when they are assembled into one unit. I wasn't running a business sending individual components, to order. Reading the law using the purposive approach* I should be sent to jail, it could even be argued I need a harsher sentence because of my efforts to escape punishment.

Allowing me to walk would be an absurdity, the law was designed to prevent the mail-order sale of guns. I am running a mail-order gun business.

*look it up, it is not the only way to read and apply the law but in the UK it is usually considered the best approach.

You kept on insisting it wasn't a pistol, none of us cares about the current legal definition of whether it is a pistol because it is a shitty law.

“a shitty law”…is that a technical, or legal, term?

Be well.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

So, if I don’t have a 3 or 5 yr old, and keep my guns locked up, I qualify, right?

Btw, what’s important to me is that the guns are safely secured and I follow the law….not what people on BM have to say about that.

Do I STILL qualify?

P.S. Your example is, literally, the definition of a NON-responsible gun owner, so how can you promote otherwise?

2 qs for you: Do you think Kyle Rittenhouse is a responsible gun user or an irresponsible gun user? I don’t know all the facts in that case — did he break a law or not? — but what’s your perspective?

And if I see a non-uniformed person standing in the street holding a gun in a circumstance in which it is legal, how am I to know if he is a responsible user or an irresponsible user? How do you tell?

 

[idahoblues]

2 qs for you: Do you think Kyle Rittenhouse is a responsible gun user or an irresponsible gun user? I don’t know all the facts in that case — did he break a law or not? — but what’s your perspective?

And if I see a non-uniformed person standing in the street holding a gun in a circumstance in which it is legal, how am I to know if he is a responsible user or an irresponsible user? How do you tell?

If you hear some loud bangs, run

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

If you hear some loud bangs, run

Light is faster than sound!

 

[Gray]

To all you resident US Blues, what do you really make of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Sid C]

Barrel length is just one criteria for whether something is a pistol, it's also the weakest criteria as proven by the AR-15 gun manufacturers taking the piss.

A rifle can have its barrel shortened and become a carbine.

These pro-gun lawyers are advising people about how to skirt the law and when a brace might fall within the classification as stock and therefore fall within the control of the ATF.

Do you think anyone can competently shoot a target with one of these weapons without a brace or a stock?

Pistol Braces for AR Pistols: A Gun Lawyer’s Take - Is This Even Legal?

Pistol braces for large pistols, including AR pistols are potentially problematic. A gun rights lawyer addresses the pistol brace head on.

lifebacklegal.com

I'm not going to give you a legal opinion on what poorly drafted or manipulated laws say is a pistol. But I will maintain the system has been gamed and it isn't a pistol, that much is clear.

None of the guns referred to in the article as pistols are pistols, all are designed to be held with both hands.

If I take a shotgun and turn it in to a sawn-off does it become a pistol?

Imagine there was a ban on mailing guns through the post, but I get around this ban by taking it apart and mailing each component to the same address in individual envelopes and then provide an idiot proof instructional video on how to assemble and on-call technical support.

Should I be let off because I never actually sent a whole firearm in the post?
The hypothetical lawmakers didn't have enough foresight that they discussed this issue but the pupose of the law was to prevent guns being available to buy via mail order, logically I should come within the scope of the offence.

Not sure where you are coming from there mate.

The law is an ass but not that much of an ass. Unauthorised possession of a component part of a firearm is classed as the same offence as possessing a complete firearm.

Case law deems component parts to be barrel, chamber, cylinder, frame body or receiver, breech, block, bolt etc etc. In short if the component part has no other use than to be part of the whole firearm then it is an offence to possess it. Obviously screws, washers, even sights that may have other uses would not be classed as component parts.

The various laws in other countries have little concern to me but I can’t envisage any ‘law maker’ being stupid enough to allow a loophole such as a firearm not being a firearm until it’s fully assembled.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Not sure where you are coming from there mate.

The law is an ass but not that much of an ass. Unauthorised possession of a component part of a firearm is classed as the same offence as possessing a complete firearm.

Case law deems component parts to be barrel, chamber, cylinder, frame body or receiver, breech, block, bolt etc etc. In short if the component part has no other use than to be part of the whole firearm then it is an offence to possess it. Obviously screws, washers, even sights that may have other uses would not be classed as component parts.

The various laws in other countries have little concern to me but I can’t envisage any ‘law maker’ being stupid enough to allow a loophole such as a firearm not being a firearm until it’s fully assembled.

Read the next post explaining. It was an analogy and hypothetical (I wasn't referring to real legislation on mail-order gun laws). Real circumstances aren't relevant to the analogy.