Liste des Groupes | Revenir à a tv |
In article <v52nd9$2v630$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>You'd be perfectly happy with machine guns being legal, wouldn't you?
wrote:
On 6/20/24 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <v52kse$2qv7o$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:I'm still fond of that. I'm perfectly happy with bumpers being legal.Aren't you guys fond of saying "just enforce the laws as written insteadBump stocks are a newer technology than the law didn't foresee... but it>
doesn't take a law professor to understand the intent.
That's why we have a Congress that can amend statutes to take into
account changes in technology. They do it all the time with the things
like the internet. They can do it with the National Firearms Act, also.
>
Your delusions (and Hutt's) aside, courts don't decide technical matters
of law based on intent. Legislative history is only a tool to resolve
ambiguity. There's no ambiguity here. The statute's text is both
extremely detailed and clear. Neither the Judicial Branch nor the
Executive Branch have the constitutional authority to make or amend
statutory law. Only the Legislative Branch can do that.
>
This is something most of us learned in grade school. Apparently Effa
and the BATF were in a coma that day.
>
of making new ones"?
I'm cool with enforcing the NFA as is; I don't want any new laws here.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.