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

[edwardware]

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

The is no such thing as a "workaround", legally speaking, nor the "spirit of the law". There is the text of the law, and the case at hand; if the case at hand complies in a way that no one thought of before, it complies. That's it.

Designing around asinine regulation written by ignoramuses is what a consumes a disturbingly large minority of product engineering time these days. From such spawn all manner of dumb designs, from SUVs to those abominations they sell instead of gas cans.

This is what you get when you let politicians write product specifications as law or regulation.

 

[ScrapMetalSlug]

More than a loophole, it highlights how trivial those laws are. Those arbitrary requirements made these work around make sense. The world didn’t end when Mossberg made a shockwave and people put arm braces on their ARs.

These are long standing laws, so few people really remember what is was like before 1934, but you saw similar things with the federal AWB. This magazine is ok because it was made before 1994, and this AK is ok because it has a thumb hole stock and not a pistol grip. A rifle with the bayonet lug ground off is ok. Just really absurd things, but when you want to ban guns how do you write a law to specify what you want to ban, when the people who want to ban them are not very knowledgeable about them.

If you want to talk the spirit of the law which doesn’t really matter, I’d think the spirit of the law was to have a baseline to start from for the next round of restrictions when politically feasible to pass through.

 

[Dibbs]

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.

IMO, most of these trick guns are inaccurate, and therefore serve little practical purpose, anyway. Maybe other folks have a use for them, but in my game, inaccurate firearms are useless as tits on a bull.

 

[DocRock]

Just a vocab moment.

Law is written by legislatures ( and lobbyists) and voted into existence by a legislature.

Regulations are written by agencies (and lobbyists) to implement the law. In theory, they must be compatible with, and not exceed the scope and authority of, the law that authorizes them.

Guidance is constituted by an array of communications issued by agencies assuming regulatory authority under the law. Again, in theory, such guidance must be compatible with and not exceed the scope and authority of the law on which they claim to be based.

Theory having been dealt with, in reality, every page of regulation written and guidance communicated subsequent to publication of the law on which they claim to be based likely contains provisions, requirements, and interpretations that are open to challenge for not only exceeding the scope of the law on which they claim to be based, but for contradicting the law outright.

So, it is for the best if, in such discussions, we differentiate between law, which has at least been passed by our elected representatives, for good or bad, and regulations or guidance, which are the vile, secretive spawn of bureaucrats, interest groups, activists, and assorted other players, all seeking to manipulate, circumvent, expand, pervert, and otherwise monkey with the law on which they are based.

 

[swg1]

Interesting, despite a very high ranking based on "likes", that is a very ignorant statement based in what is clearly inexperience with the firearms in question regarding accuracy. No, they are not benchrest guns, nor would I try to defend myself or home with same. In some circles, that is the epitome of a Fudd stereotype. Ask Jim Zumbo how that went. This is how that sounds, "it's not what I use, so it is no good"

 

[FL-NC]

Words matter. No such thing as a "work around" when it comes to the law. You are either compliant or you aren't.

 

[TheWarhammer]

The speed limit sign reads 70 MPH. I'm driving 70. I'm getting as close as I can without actually breaking the law. Am I a rebellious scofflaw, flouting the intent and spirit of the law? Or am I a good citizen, keeping my vehicle at safe and responsible speeds? Am I "working around" the law or am I simply obeying the law? After all, 70 is the maximum I can legally drive, but maybe they really want me to go slower than that. Should I drive 60 when I see a 70 MPH speed zone, because that might be what was "intended?"

Terms like "workaround" and "loophole" have intentionally negative connotations. Whereas "law abiding" and "within the law" are positive. It saddens me to see "gun guys" using pejorative terms to refer to perfectly legal firearms. We have plenty of people outside of our community who are true enemies to our liberty and freedom.

 

[wanderinwalker]

I agree with jmr40, there is little true purpose behind the laws that tell us a 16" barrel rifle is OK to purchase over the counter, but the same rifle with a 14" barrel is verboten unless registered and accompanied by a $200 tax stamp. The two items are functionally identical, though a 14" barrel Trapper carbine is marginally handier to carry around.

Actually, the SBR and SBS exist because the original writers of the NFA wanted to eliminate or register ALL pistols. The SBR and SBS were added to prevent people from making pistols out of rifles and shotguns. Pistols got removed from the final version of the NFA, but short rifles and shotguns were left in. The fact that we now have arm-braced pistols and firearms available probably suggests that the idea of cutting down long guns to make practical, concealable guns was a bit of a reach on the part of the law's authors. Either way, we're stuck with it today, as I don't see anybody willing to expend the political capital to pass a revision or revocation of the NFA.

Suppressors fall into a similar category of sounding much scarier than their practical application proves. Despite what is commonly shown in cinema (and believed by the general public), suppressors do not make gunshots silent. In many cases they barely bring sound levels down to hearing safe. Think of them like the muffler on a car. Most people with average hearing can still hear a "quiet" car running, at least above idle. Most gunshots are still well over 100-decibels suppressed. Very easily heard and painful to some ears. (For a point of reference, the average sound level inside a car cruising at highway speed is between 70 and 75 decibels. The sound level in the cabin of a commercial airliner at cruising speed is about 85 decibels. An incoming subway train is over 90 decibels.)

Argue not that these new class of firearms violate the "spirit of the law", argue that the law is arbitrary and capricious.

 

[Ernie Bass]

Never in all my years of shooting and hunting have I found one reason to use a work around or loop-hole.. And as a parent I would never make myself a example of trying to work around the law. Doing so just gets easier along the way until a line is crossed and the devil comes to collect his dues.

 

[mcb]

IMO, most of these trick guns are inaccurate, and therefore serve little practical purpose, anyway. Maybe other folks have a use for them, but in my game, inaccurate firearms are useless as tits on a bull.

Not sure I agree. My AR pistol is a "work around" for short barrel rifle laws and is at least 2-MOA accurate out to 100 yards and I can consistently ring a 10-inch gong at 200 yards while suppressed using sub sonic ammo and only a 3X optic. If I made it a legal SBR and changed out the SBA3 pistol brace for a traditional carbine stock the gun would get no more accurate.

A binary trigger a "work around" for burst/full-auto laws does not effect accuracy unless the user operates it super fast but that is true of tradition semi-auto triggers also.

The bullet button (and it's new revisions) does not effect accuracy at all but gives a user a "work around" around CA and other states' detachable magazine laws.

The various super ugly non-pistol-grip pistol-grips to "work around" CA and other states prominent features laws don't effect accuracy assuming you can deal with the strange ergonomics.

I am sure other can give additional examples.

 

[bearcreek]

IMO, most of these trick guns are inaccurate, and therefore serve little practical purpose, anyway.

Is that opinion based on experience? If so, with what "trick gun"?

 

[Spats McGee]

A law says what it says. Nothing more, nothing less. When someone wants to discuss 'the spirit of the law,' I assume that they want to discuss something that isn't part of the statute in question. Legislatures have time and resources to devote to studies, hiring experts, etc., so that they can determine exactly what verbiage is needed to produce the desired effect. They also meet regularly and can amend statutes during any session. Thus, I presume that a legislature meant to do exactly what is in the statute.

 

[bearcreek]

And as a parent I would never make myself a example of trying to work around the law.

Never? That can't be entirely true. Everyone has a line.

 

[GAF]

When someone says "Spirit of the law I think of the word intent.

 

[Old Dog]

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.

Say what? Not to further derail the thread off topic but ... a gun is a weapon. Period. Designed as a weapon, designed to kill living creatures in the most highly effective manner. Saying your gun is not a weapon is ridiculous, and certainly isn't contributing to making those with no firearms experience have a "more negative view of them."
gun
/ɡən/

noun

1. 1.
   a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.

The[re] is no such thing as a "workaround", legally speaking, nor the "spirit of the law". There is the text of the law, and the case at hand; if the case at hand complies in a way that no one thought of before, it complies. That's it.

Pretty much. Some here may be overthinking this whole thing.

 

[mcb]

"What's legal isn't always right, what is right isn't always legal." -said in many ways by many men and women wiser than me over the ages.

"Spirit of the law" always felt like an excuse for a poorly written law.

 

[Texas10mm]

I have a sinking feeling that some of ya all would like up like sheep to the slaughter if the Government banned all firearms.

 

[Old Dog]

Why do you say that?

 

[bearcreek]

Why do you say that?

Probably because of comments like this,

Never in all my years of shooting and hunting have I found one reason to use a work around or loop-hole.. And as a parent I would never make myself a example of trying to work around the law. Doing so just gets easier along the way until a line is crossed and the devil comes to collect his dues.

I imagine.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Personally I feel most laws restricting this or that gun or part are stupid and illogical. So the manufacturers make weird and sometimes impractical stuff looking for work arounds to get law abiding consumers what they want.

Are they breaking the law? No. So game on.

 

[12Bravo20]

The whole 26" OAL/16" barrel makes no sense at all. I built an AR pistol with a 10.5" barrel and used the Kak Super buffer tube (extra length) which is the OAL as my carbine with a 16" barrel with the stock fully collapsed. The decision that 26" is the cutoff for what is concealable or not makes no sense along with the 16" barrel length for rifles.

 

[ATLDave]

As others have noted, the viability of these things as workarounds* is really an indictment of the drafting of the law. The problem is that one group of people - the pro-gun people - would "fix" the law by removing most or all of these (stupid IMO) restrictions. But another group would "fix" these "loopholes" by increasing/broadening restrictions. Since we can't agree on which direction a "fix" would go, the law will continue to be wonky and full of technicalities.

This happens in other areas of the law, not just firearms. Wherever there's a big philosophical/ideological polarization on the fundamental goals and methods of the law, legislatures can't really do much "craftsmanship" to "fix" the law. It's hard to "fix" a car if you can't agree that the end result should be an internal-combustion-powered personal transportation device versus a rechargeable-battery-powered climate control and audio entertainment capsule. Got to have a shared goal.

*I do agree many of these things are workarounds. Consider the "brace" attached to a "pistol" with a 10" barrel and a 5-6 pound overall weight. Nobody would prefer the "brace" over a conventional stock. People only choose that because the conventional stock option is regulated more tightly and has a cost and delay associated with it.

 

[CDW4ME]

Odds are the laws are not written by firearm enthusiast, might be done by people that dislike firearms.
I spent years teaching, I thought the legislature should have to spend 1 week (minimum) in the classroom as a sub teacher before they could make laws about education.
I know nothing about anesthesia, how about I get on a committee and make up some rules for anesthesiologist, sounds dumb cause it is.
When people that know nothing make up the rules you get rules that make no sense like have to have a birds head grip not a pistol grip - Mossberg Shockwave; the grip totally changes how the gun works its effectiveness, No it doesn't (and yea I've got one). And IN.

 

[General Geoff]

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.

Bingo. The NFA as originally proposed, also regulated/restricted all handguns. Without handguns being restricted similarly to SBRs, SBSs and AOWs, the rest of the law makes no logical sense whatsoever.

 

[Tommygunn]

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.

This is largely an artifact of how the NFA of 1934 was treated as it matriculated through kongress. Short barrel rifles/shotguns were given NFA status as they were easier to hide. At the time, handguns were on the NFA list too. As such, this made some degree of sense, even though it was (IMHO) clearly an attack on the Second Amendment.
The NFA couldn't pass with handguns on the list .... they were too ubiquitous and popular, so they were removed, leaving us with the illogical federal law we have today.