Man charged with safe act violation.

[Marine Cpl]

Neither "detachable" nor "accept" is defined in the law either. Why do you read "detachable" and "accept" in the broadest possible sense, and "mount" in the narrowest ?

I don't have a problem with you, we agree about most things. I just have a disagreement about this particular point of law. Neither of us are lawyers, let alone judges, so it is completely an academic discussion at this point anyway.

Because that's what it says. Since no levels of detachability or acceptability are defined like in California law, one can only go by what the law says. So if it detaches it detaches. If it accepts, it accepts. That's it.

 

[spat]

Because that's what it says. Since no levels of detachability or acceptability are defined like in California law, one can only go by what the law says. So if it detaches it detaches. If it accepts, it accepts. That's it.

So your definition of detach is detach, well, that's helpful.

 

[Marine Cpl]

So your definition of detach is detach, well, that's helpful.

Yep. That's what the law says. You cannot add your own levels of a compliance. If the law says that armor piercing pistol ammo is illegal, then all ammo fired from pistols that can pierce armor is illegal including soft point .223 ammo.

If it however defines armor piercing to be armor that is made of solid copper, than only solid copper rounds are illegal for pistols. An AR pistol with soft points that can still penetrate armor would still be legal.

That's how laws work.

 

[spat]

Yep. That's what the law says. You cannot add your own levels of a compliance. If the law says that armor piercing pistol ammo is illegal, then all ammo fired from pistols that can pierce armor is illegal including soft point .223 ammo.

If it however defines armor piercing to be armor that is made of solid copper, than only solid copper rounds are illegal for pistols. An AR pistol with soft points that can still penetrate armor would still be legal.

That's how laws work.

I wonder why they bother with dictionaries when you can just repeat a word and call it a definition then.....

 

[freddy]

Neither "detachable" nor "accept" is defined in the law either. Why do you read "detachable" and "accept" in the broadest possible sense, and "mount" in the narrowest ?

Perhaps because he is invested in the (unergonomic) Thordsen and wants to rationalize the significant compromise that goes with it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Perhaps because he is invested in the (unergonomic) Thordsen and wants to rationalize the significant compromise that goes with it.

No. Sorry. I'm fact I took it off. I'm using another method.

 

[freddy]

No. Sorry. I'm fact I took it off. I'm using another method.

Cool! That new spur type grip in the other thread? Was in the prototype stage then as I recall. If so, how is it?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Cool! That new spur type grip in the other thread? Was in the prototype stage then as I recall. If so, how is it?

Nope.

 

[freddy]

Nope.

Ah ha. Top secret stuff!

Or, did you wise up and go full feature with lightning link as holdover said?

Or, did you kiss and makeup with bulletguy and go spur and extended trigger guard?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Ah ha. Top secret stuff!

Or, did you wise up and go full feature with lightning link as holdover said?

Or, did you kiss and makeup with bulletguy and go spur and extended trigger guard?

Nope.

 

[freddy]

Nope.

I'm sorry to hear that. Things will get better. Just hang in there man.

 

[SomeSoldier]

The law states that if there is no definition written in penal law, then the common definition will be used. Basically from a dictionary.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

FNY. my brain hurts trying to figure out how convoluted this abomination of a law is and knowing how bad an over zealous DA can ruin your life over it.

FNY. FUAC.