21–30 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Absurd fiction" aka "established law for decades." This concept of "serialized part" is a construct stemming from Democrat-established legislation. What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?
I think you know that you're deploying the "neener neener" strategy on me and I'm not interested in engaging with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Absurd fiction" aka "established law for decades." This concept of "serialized part" is a construct stemming from Democrat-established legislation. What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?
I think you know that you're deploying the "neener neener" strategy on me and I'm not interested in engaging with it.
If one wants to make something illegal, the onus is on the lawmaker to write precise legislation. This is centuries-old legal doctrine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Neener neener" seems to be working out well for the gun rights advocates in the source article, who enjoy the absurd fiction that a lower receiver is a firearm and the entire assembly they attach on top of it is just "gun parts".
"Absurd fiction" aka "established law for decades." This concept of "serialized part" is a construct stemming from Democrat-established legislation. What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Absurd fiction" aka "established law for decades." This concept of "serialized part" is a construct stemming from Democrat-established legislation. What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?
Which part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to understand? ;)
'A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.'
Whose rights shall not be infringed here, the breakfast's or those of the people?
Ok, so those bills in NY and WA about making it illegal to sell printers that don't detect firearm parts are dead in the water, right?
It will be fine to print a gun but there will be laws outlawing your ability to print an iphone case and printers will have to detect parts from any registered manufacturer. So we will get the worst of all worlds. printers only for guns and not for people to build useful things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Absurd fiction" aka "established law for decades." This concept of "serialized part" is a construct stemming from Democrat-established legislation. What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?
I think you know that you're deploying the "neener neener" strategy on me and I'm not interested in engaging with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads. Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here. Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extr…
Car/traffic laws don't apply on personal property (Though noise ordinances still would), but that won't stop cops from trying to ticket you anyways. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/receive...
Ok, so those bills in NY and WA about making it illegal to sell printers that don't detect firearm parts are dead in the water, right?
It will be fine to print a gun but there will be laws outlawing your ability to print an iphone case and printers will have to detect parts from any registered manufacturer. So we will get the worst of all worlds. printers only for guns and not for people to build useful things.
Who knew that the "well ackshually, technically, we're not banning guns, we're just requiring a serial number! (one that you cannot legally apply)" strategy wouldn't work. "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.
Those two things are in fact different. Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned?