Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:33 pm
Selador wrote:RocketScott wrote:Technically the trigger is pressed by the trigger spring after releasing finger pressure.
The law doesn’t say that your finger has to do the pressing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Technically... You could justify full-auto by the same argument.
Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:06 pm
MadPick wrote:Selador wrote:RocketScott wrote:Technically the trigger is pressed by the trigger spring after releasing finger pressure.
The law doesn’t say that your finger has to do the pressing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Technically... You could justify full-auto by the same argument.
No, because with full auto the trigger doesn't move after the first shot.
Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:26 pm
Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:16 pm
mcyclonegt wrote:All these technicalities create way too much risk for major legal issues. Is it really worth it to be able to shoot at a high rate of feed? It serves zero purpose other than fun. I don’t disagree that all these laws should be tossed, but the reality is we have to live with them. I am truly fascinated by people trying to manipulate words of laws on these types of things. Is it worth loosing your rights over? If the same money and energy was spent trying to get these BS laws changed we may actually get somewhere. I personally feel these things that skate the edge of legal set us back.
Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:41 am
Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:10 am
Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:53 pm
RocketScott wrote:This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"
It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.
Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:57 pm
Guns4Liberty wrote:RocketScott wrote:This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"
It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.
+1
This is what I was getting at. There is a separate trigger movement/action that must take place for the 2nd shot. The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.
Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:27 pm
Selador wrote:Guns4Liberty wrote:RocketScott wrote:This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"
It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.
+1
This is what I was getting at. There is a separate trigger movement/action that must take place for the 2nd shot. The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.
Good gawd!
Laws are already too verbose, and lawyers already suck up way too much of the GDP.
You KNOW what the intention of the law is.
Quit picking at nits. Or you have no right to complain about the complexity, or the cost of the legal system, Nor how long it takes to 'get justice'...
Every law ends up being 1000 pages long, so that they can include several chapters describing what a finger is, what a trigger is, and what a press or pull is...
Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:30 pm
RocketScott wrote:Selador wrote:Guns4Liberty wrote:RocketScott wrote:This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"
It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.
+1
This is what I was getting at. There is a separate trigger movement/action that must take place for the 2nd shot. The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.
Good gawd!
Laws are already too verbose, and lawyers already suck up way too much of the GDP.
You KNOW what the intention of the law is.
Quit picking at nits. Or you have no right to complain about the complexity, or the cost of the legal system, Nor how long it takes to 'get justice'...
Every law ends up being 1000 pages long, so that they can include several chapters describing what a finger is, what a trigger is, and what a press or pull is...
The intention of the law is to ban a certain item. It's being misinterpreted to ban a different item.
Maybe the state should stop making laws that already exist on the federal level. We don't need 50 different definitions of machine guns, or anything else firearms related.
Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:35 pm
Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:18 pm
Guns4Liberty wrote:If we don't explore the boundaries of the law, then we'll never truly know what is permitted and what is not. This thread is such an exploration; if you're not interested, I'm sure there are other threads that you will find interesting.
Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:09 pm
Guns4Liberty wrote:...The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.
Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:27 am
RocketScott wrote:Guns4Liberty wrote:...The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.
I don’t think it does. It says what it says.
RocketScott wrote:Fostech made a business decision not to sell to WA. I’m sure our jack wagon of an AG had something to do with it. Legalities don’t seem to matter here and the threat of prosecution is real.
Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:25 am