Liste des Groupes | Revenir à a tv |
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:On 6/21/2024 1:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:>In article <v52nd9$2v630$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/24 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <v52kse$2qv7o$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote: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 still fond of that. I'm perfectly happy with bumpers being legal.
I'm cool with enforcing the NFA as is; I don't want any new laws here.
You'd be perfectly happy with machine guns being legal, wouldn't you?
Yes, mainly because they already are legal.
>
I have one.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/yes-machine-guns-are-legal-here-comes
-all-catches-163921
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.