- Messages
- 4,996
- Reactions
- 2,279
You would not be since there is no word play involved. It is clear and definitive in the eyes of the law.I would'nt want to fight that word play in court.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You would not be since there is no word play involved. It is clear and definitive in the eyes of the law.I would'nt want to fight that word play in court.
You would not be since there is no word play involved. It is clear and definitive in the eyes of the law.
Unless you are doing any of that and then trafficking the guns interstate you have no problems. You cannot do that now either.
There are already laws that prohibit shipping firearms across boarders .
even you noted that .
Then why the new laws ?
Why not just enforce the laws already in place?
If that was the case then we would not have so many interpretations of the
2A.
I will say this one more time...please try to keep up. Those are simply the definitions. They are not the law. The law deals only with "manufacture AND trafficking". It in no way effects such activities for personal use. You cannot make and sell ammunition across state lines without a license now. That does not change.PP, the definitions state specifically that assembling a firearm with out a license makes said firearm illicit.
It states the same for ammunition.
Because occasionally politicians like to appear they are doing something when they really are not. They get to take credit from supporters but have no fear of real political retribution because they did not really change anything.There are already laws that prohibit shipping firearms across boarders .
even you noted that .
Then why the new laws ?
Why not just enforce the laws already in place?
Apples to oranges. The 2A is written in a very odd way and open to interpretation. This is not. It is very clearly written.
Because occasionally politicians like to appear they are doing something when they really are not. They get to take credit from supporters but have no fear of real political retribution because they did not really change anything.
Apples to oranges. The 2A is written in a very odd way and open to interpretation. This is not. It is very clearly written.
How so
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I must have missed where I said that. Please point that out.are you saying as in previous post that should not worry and we just kick back and let it happen ?
If the only law pertaining to the subject stated it was only illegal to "hunt AND gather" then it would be legal to hunt if you did not gather. That is called a loophole. The law would not be written that way if it was intended to stop hunting alone.It obviously is not very clearly written or you and I would not have different interpretations of its meaning.
If I said you were not allowed to hunt and gather on my property would it be OK for you to hunt as long as you did not gather?
I do...but you don't understand the definition of context. That is pretty clear.I guess you don't understand the definition of illicit.
I must have missed where I said that. Please point that out.
If the only law pertaining to the subject stated it was only illegal to "hunt AND gather" then it would be legal to hunt if you did not gather. That is called a loophole. The law would not be written that way if it was intended to stop hunting alone.
Its just that you have spent a lot of time disputing it to the point that it sounds like you support it .