If the law supposes that, the law is a ass, a idiot

KMaurer

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,653
Likes
349
Location
Litchfield, NH
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
Writing for a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, Judge Kozinski (the one certifiably sane member of that circuit) has the following rather amusing footnote, thanks to someone writing for the 5th Circuit.
For purposes of the registration requirement, Congress defines as “firearms” many weapons that are not technically firearms, such as silencers, bombs, grenades and mines. “In short, the term [firearm] as used in the Act bears little if any correspondence to that in common usage, much as though the word ‘animal’ were defined in some supposititious National Zoo Act to exclude all mammals, reptiles and birds except lions and tigers, but to include freight trains, teddy bears, feather-boas and halltrees.”
United States v. Anderson, 885 F.2d 1248, 1251 (5th Cir. 1989) (en banc).
The case (US v. Serna) was an appeal of a sentence enhancement due to a prior conviction for possession of an "assault weapon". The panel reversed that enhancement on the grounds that possession of a cosmetically-challenged gun didn't constitute a "crime of violence" under the sentencing guidelines.

Ken
 
“In short, the term [firearm] as used in the Act bears little if any correspondence to that in common usage, much as though the word ‘animal’ were defined in some supposititious National Zoo Act to exclude all mammals, reptiles and birds except lions and tigers, but to include freight trains, teddy bears, feather-boas and halltrees.”

That kind of broad interpretation is pure supposition, and complete bullshit.

So by that line of reasoning, if we were to ban beef, we would not just be banning beef but all beef related accessories as well like ovens, outdoor grills (because althought they can cook other meats,they both can "potentially" cook steak making them illegal) steak knives, steak sauce, seasoning,outdoor grills....
since when does saying one thing imply 50 others, especially where law is concerned. way too broad in its scope
 
...National Zoo Act to exclude all mammals, reptiles and birds except lions and tigers, but to include freight trains, teddy bears, feather-boas and halltrees.

Now that's amusing
.
 
No suppositions, no bullshit, simply reading the exact words of the law. The National Firearms Act defines the word "firearms" for the purposes of the registration requirements imposed by that act to include only a subset of what normal people mean when they use the word (e.g., the NFA doesn't include rifles and shotguns with barells over specified lengths, unless they're select fire or full auto), but it also includes grenades, silencers and other items. The footnote simply cites this difinition and notes it's arbitrary nature. The emperor walking at the head of the parade stark naked is stupid, but it's hardly bullshit to point out the fact, which is exactly what the court did.

Ken
 
KMaurer said:
No suppositions, no bullshit, simply reading the exact words of the law. The National Firearms Act defines the word "firearms" for the purposes of the registration requirements imposed by that act to include only a subset of what normal people mean when they use the word (e.g., the NFA doesn't include rifles and shotguns with barells over specified lengths, unless they're select fire or full auto), but it also includes grenades, silencers and other items. The footnote simply cites this difinition and notes it's arbitrary nature. The emperor walking at the head of the parade stark naked is stupid, but it's hardly bullshit to point out the fact, which is exactly what the court did.

Ken

wasnt talking about you at all, hope you didnt take it that way , i meant the law :D
 
Back
Top Bottom