Legal "work-arounds": How do you feel?

[WrongHanded]

This is going to get controversial. I put it in General Gun Discussion because whilst related to the law, it's not strictly a legal discussion.

Between the various Federal firearms laws we have (which I know many disagree with), we have what would appear to me to be a clear intent to try and define and limit types of firearms. Such as the concept that a pistol is what we would expect a pistol to be. A shotgun is what we would expect a shotgun to be. That automatic or burst fire is not allowable. That rifles should be of a certain length and have a stock. Etc.

Now legally, a 12ga AOW with a relatively short barrel and pistol grip, built on a shotgun receiver, is not a shotgun. But it kinda is, isn't it?

A pistol, with a relatively short barrel, and an armbrace (which can be brought to the shoulder in the same way as a stock), built on an AR lower receiver and chambered for a rifle cartridge, is not a rifle. But it kinda is, isn't it?

An AR with a bumpstock on it (to fire multiple rounds quickly without having to move the trigger finger), is not a fully automatic rifle. But it kinda is, isn't it?

Legally, we have an AOW; a pistol; and a semiautomatic rifle. But if we didn't have legal definitions that have been established, wouldn't we just say "That's a short barrel pistol grip shotgun. That's a compact rifle. And that's a terrible design for an automatic rifle!"

Do you see these things as work-arounds to the spirit of existing laws? I do. And I think they're all easy things to label as "Assault Weapons".

 

[Meeks36]

Assault is a action. So I could assault you with a single shot. Then it would become a assault weapon. Off subject but hate the words assault weapon. It's not a work around as long as the guberment says you can legal own them. Can't legally own a bump stock anymore.

 

[unclenunzie]

You have a point. You only have to look past the federal to the more restrictive states to see what businesses will do to squeeze past those laws. I know this isn't a law type thread, but as a lay person it seems to me a law needs to be specific to be enforceable, and that's how the "spirit" of the law can be slipped past. CA with it's "bullet button" thing from years ago, and NY with those odd-looking but clearly functional non-rifle-stock rifle-stocks.

 

[Meeks36]

In my opinion for what it's worth. They leave laws open and loose. So it's harder to figure out what's what. If you are law abiding not much to worry about. Breaking some laws. They will stack any and everything they can on you. But what do I know I'm just a dumb country boy.

 

[jmr40]

I think all 3 have taken advantage of loopholes in the law to work around the spirit of the law. But at the same time I see no purpose for those laws in the 1st place. Why is a 44 magnum rifle with a 16" barrel legal and a 44 magnum revolver with a 3" barrel legal, but a rifle with a 14" barrel illegal. Makes no sense to me. If there is a loophole that allows a 10" AR to be called a pistol even though the arm brace allows it to be held like a rifle then why not.

Same with shotguns. I can fire shot loads through my 44 and 357 revolvers with 4" barrels, why not a shotgun with a 14" barrel.

Not allowing everyone to freely own suppressors is another law that makes no sense to me. But so far I've not seen a legal loophole for that.

At the same time I never felt the need for a bumpstock. But that was personal preference. If others wanted to use one that was fine with me.

 

[DocRock]

I think this is a counter-productive discussion. The regulatory authority has made some odd regulatory decisions. Discussing them and describing them as loopholes, work-arounds etc., is the sort of thing that invites further regulatory scrutiny and/or political interference, neither of which generally result in an improved regulatory environment.

 

[WrongHanded]

Can't legally own a bump stock anymore.

Ah, I didn't realize that happened.

 

[doubleh]

Assault is a action. So I could assault you with a single shot. Then it would become a assault weapon. Off subject but hate the words assault weapon. It's not a work around as long as the guberment says you can legal own them. Can't legally own a bump stock anymore.

Plus according to the dictionary definition a gun is not a weapon until you use it to assault someone. Until then it's just a gun. It irks me to see people refer to their firearms as weapons when they really aren't and believe it just makes people who have no firearms experience to have a more negative view of them. Antis already have that view. Basically about anything you use to assault anyone becomes an assault weapon, baseball bat, ax handle, stick, rock, hammer, table lamp, purse, etc.

 

[mcb]

Make stupid gun laws get stupid guns to work around them. I applaud nearly all of these silly gadgets and configurations. Most of them would not exist if the NFA and related laws went away.

 

[Swampman]

...Do you see these things as work-arounds to the spirit of existing laws? I do....

Law is law as written, it doesn't have a "spirit".

...You only have to look past the federal to the more restrictive states to see what businesses will do to squeeze past those laws...

Obeying the law is obeying the law.

Did automakers "squeeze past" more restrictive emissions laws by making cars more efficient and adding catalytic converters?

No.

They obeyed the law.

For anyone that hasn't figured it out yet, the OP is trolling and hoping to get you to say something stupid.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!

 

[George P]

A law is, by my definition, a restriction on freedom. Obviously, to prevent anarchy, we have various laws for the betterment of society (like not yelling FIRE in a crowded theater). Sometimes, the gov't knows that a law written in the broadest sense, allows for more interpretation both in their favor and in the the citizens' because if you get VERY specific, than ANY slight deviation is not covered.

 

[WrongHanded]

For anyone that hasn't figured it out yet, the OP is trolling and hoping to get you to say something stupid.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!

No. I'm not trolling. And I resent the accusation.

Law is law as written, it doesn't have a "spirit".

I disagree. Laws are written in language. Language is how we convey our thoughts. It's not always possibly to put into words our exact thoughts, feelings, or desires. But we use language to do this because it is our best option.

Every law written had an intent behind it. A purpose. And that purpose is not the words themselves. So you can call it "spirit", "intent", "purpose". It's the same thing.

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

They are not workarounds. They are firearms that have been produced to meet sets of measurements or other characteristics in order to be classified as specific types of firearms as defined by a regulatory agency.

 

[Swampman]

No. I'm not trolling. And I resent the accusation.



I disagree. Laws are written in language. Language is how we convey our thoughts. It's not always possibly to put into works out exact thoughts, feelings, or desires. But we use language to do this because it is our best option.

Not for some people...

 

[newfalguy101]

If its legal, its legal.....I dont see the issue.

In this country, laws restrict, they do not allow. Ergo, unless it is illegal...it is legal.

 

[boom boom]

Regarding intent of the laws, it is difficult to go beyond the text because that is the only thing that was actually voted on by the representatives. The problem is the aggregation of opinions of lawmakers intended the law to do is almost impossible and I can speak from experience with that branch of government that many members of Congress have no idea what they are voting on. So how do you determine the spirit of the laws when most of the members have no clue what they are voting on?

So, a most judges have concluded, they make their best effort to interpret the laws and if Congress doesn't like it, they can change it.
People and the executive branch do the same thing. There is the letter of the law, and then how the executive branch enforces it, the courts interpret it, and what people do to act in conformity with the law as they perceive it.

 

[WrongHanded]

Not for some people...

Fixed.

Thanks for politely pointing out my spelling mistakes.

 

[MistWolf]

...Every law written had an intent behind it. A purpose. And that purpose is not the words themselves. So you can call it "spirit", "intent", "purpose". It's the same thing.

The purpose, the spirit, of too many laws is to impose tyranny. Should we accept that? No.

Arm braces, binary triggers and 26 inch shotguns that are firearms are not workarounds or loopholes. They're freedom. They're a relaxation of draconian regulations we've been saddled with for too long and we should be celebrating. We should be pushing back. We should all be part of a ground swell demanding the NFA be repealed. When enough people push hard & long enough, it'll happen.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Do you see these things as work-arounds to the spirit of existing laws? I do. And I think they're all easy things to label as "Assault Weapons".

Absolutely. I don't understand how a Mossberg Shockwave is even remotely legal. I also don't understand the intricacies around "pistol braces." (Are they legal up until you put it against your shoulder?) I suspect that all it will take is the ATF reinterpreting their definition of, or redefining altogether, their terminology, and those things will all become illegal overnight-not unlike the bump stocks.

 

[Elkins45]

Loophole = something that is legal but somebody else doesn’t want to be.

I think the NFA is a stupid, useless law and I think any “workaround” that illustrates its absurdity is a good thing.

 

[WestKentucky]

Work arounds quite frankly piss me off. It’s like when I tell my kids to stay out of the garage and they sit on their bikes inches away from the garage. It’s technically following the rules, but it’s intentionally getting as close as possible without breaking the rules. If people would put the same effort into fixing the law as they do working around it then we would have the NFA overhauled, universal reciprocity, eliminates world hunger, and 3 different cures to the coronavirus. Letter of the law is one thing... intent of the law is something different.

 

[Olon]

Law is law as written, it doesn't have a "spirit".

Obeying the law is obeying the law.

Did automakers "squeeze past" more restrictive emissions laws by making cars more efficient and adding catalytic converters?

No.

They obeyed the law.

For anyone that hasn't figured it out yet, the OP is trolling and hoping to get you to say something stupid.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!

Some of them tried to squeeze past by cheating emissions tests.

Gun restrictions are an effort to squeeze past the constitution.

 

[WrongHanded]

Loophole = something that is legal but somebody else doesn’t want to be.

I think the NFA is a stupid, useless law and I think any “workaround” that illustrates its absurdity is a good thing.

I assume everyone finds some laws stupid and useless. But for each one of those people, there's probably another that thinks the law is a good idea.

And that's okay. But I still think a loophole is a loophole. A law is written in such a way that it fails to comprehensively cover all potential scenarios, and someone finds a way to do exactly what the law was intended to prohibit. That's a loophole.

So a loophole is bad when you like the law, and good when you don't.

Someone once said "One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter."

 

[mcb]

I assume everyone finds some laws stupid and useless. But for each one of those people, there's probably another that thinks the law is a good idea.

And that's okay. But I still think a loophole is a loophole. A law is written in such a way that it fails to comprehensively cover all potential scenarios, and someone finds a way to do exactly what the law was intended to prohibit. That's a loophole.

So a loophole is bad when you like the law, and good when you don't.

Someone once said "One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter."

Is that not why the various legislations continues to meet and make laws. If a loophole is found or created by inventiont/technology they can close the loophole.

I just wish most laws came with an expiration date, roughly a half generation down the road. At that expiration date the law goes away unless the current legislation renews it with a majority vote.

 

[rust collector]

Laws are always a compromise. It's a loophole when you disagree with it. It's inspired common sense when you favor it. There are no perfect laws just as there are no perfect humans, and unless your objective is to lock everyone up, laws must be adapted to changing mores, values and technology.

An example was the NFA. The proponents wanted to prohibit or severely restrict handguns, but they couldn't quite get that done so they went after silencers and we're all the poorer, and deafer for it.