Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: Buying a gun in Oregon from private seller, 594 issue?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    62

    Buying a gun in Oregon from private seller, 594 issue?

    I am a Washington state resident with a concealed permit. I am looking at purchasing a gun in Oregon from a private seller. Any issues with me needing to do this through a FFL or deal with the fallout of 594? Since we are neighboring states are there any provisions for me to purchase a firearm in Oregon being a Washington state resident? It is a pistol.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    It is my understanding that the Federal government has a "law" that requires residents of different States to go through an FFL for such sales.

    Federal law is silent on the matter of two residents of the same State selling firearms to each other but when the individuals are residents of different States Federal "law" says they must use an FFL.

    Just another absurd and erroneous interpretation of the commerce clause.

    Do you have an immediate Family member in Oregon?
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    62
    No family at all in Oregon so that not an option.

    But I thought there was a "loophole" (not really a loophole) that allowed us to purchase firearms in neighboring states. For example I purchased a rifle (one of those nasty black "assault" rifles that kill 100s with a single bullet) in Idaho last year with no issues from Cabelas.

    I am assuming (probably incorrectly) that I can purchase firearms in either Idaho and Oregon.

  4. #4
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990
    Long gun, or handgun???
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by golddigger14s View Post
    Long gun, or handgun???
    It is a pistol.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by av8tr1 View Post
    No family at all in Oregon so that not an option.

    But I thought there was a "loophole" (not really a loophole) that allowed us to purchase firearms in neighboring states. For example I purchased a rifle (one of those nasty black "assault" rifles that kill 100s with a single bullet) in Idaho last year with no issues from Cabelas.

    I am assuming (probably incorrectly) that I can purchase firearms in either Idaho and Oregon.
    Cabela's is an FFL
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    Cabela's is an FFL
    Yes but the transaction happened in Idaho. The entire process happened in Idaho. It was actually the manager in the Idaho Cabela's gun department who told me that it is legal for a Washington state resident to purchase from the two neighboring states and vice versa. But I've never seen the actual law regarding this.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by av8tr1 View Post
    Yes but the transaction happened in Idaho. The entire process happened in Idaho. It was actually the manager in the Idaho Cabela's gun department who told me that it is legal for a Washington state resident to purchase from the two neighboring states and vice versa. But I've never seen the actual law regarding this.
    I am not familiar with the details of the law either, but my guess would be that it only applies to FFL's and would not apply to private sales.
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 12-09-2014 at 12:29 AM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    It is my understanding that the Federal government has a "law" that requires residents of different States to go through an FFL for such sales.

    Federal law is silent on the matter of two residents of the same State selling firearms to each other but when the individuals are residents of different States Federal "law" says they must use an FFL.

    Just another absurd and erroneous interpretation of the commerce clause.

    Do you have an immediate Family member in Oregon?
    Please cite this law.

    I say that there is no such law.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Geerolla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    WA, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by av8tr1 View Post
    Yes but the transaction happened in Idaho. The entire process happened in Idaho. It was actually the manager in the Idaho Cabela's gun department who told me that it is legal for a Washington state resident to purchase from the two neighboring states and vice versa. But I've never seen the actual law regarding this.
    This is true for long guns when purchased through an out of state FFL, NOT handguns.

    A person may only buy a firearm within his own State except that he may buy a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides.

    [18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 178.29]
    You will need to both go through an FFL to transfer ownership of a handgun from state to state.


    Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The three laws which Freedom1Man refuses to acknowledge are 18 USC 922 (a)(3), (a)(5) and (b)(3).

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

    In summary:

    18 USC 922 (a)(3) makes it a violation of Federal law for an unlicensed person (license meaning FFL) to transport into or receive in their state of residence any firearm that that they purchased or otherwise obtained outside their state of residence, with the exception of firearms that are inherited and rifles and shotguns obtained from an FFL in accordance with (b)(3).

    18 USC 922 (a)(5) makes it a violation of Federal law for an unlicensed person (license meaning FFL) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any unlicensed person who does not reside in the same state, with the exception of firearms that are inherited and firearms that are loaned for sporting purposes.

    18 USC 922 (b)(3) makes it a violation of Federal law for an FFL to transfer any firearm other than a rifle or shotgun to any unlicensed person who does not reside in the same state the FFL has their business located. However, (b)(3) does allow an FFL to transfer a rifle or shotgun to a resident of any state so long as the laws of both the state the FFL is located in and the state the unlicensed person is from are followed. A non-Washington FFL still has to comply with Washington laws for the transfer to not violate Federal law.

    All language regarding contiguous (bordering) states was removed from Federal law in 1986 and the provisions for FFLs to transfer rifles and shotguns now apply to residents of any state - they do not have to border each other.

    It's up to you whether or not you choose to obey the law, now you have the facts.
    Please read section 921

    (2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

    and you are incorrectly citing section 922
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-...p44-sec922.htm
    (a) It shall be unlawful—

    (1) for any person—

    (A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; or


    (2) for any importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector licensed under the provisions of this chapter to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm to any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, except that—

    (3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;
    So, again, cite the law proving your claim.

    I just disproved your current claim.

    So, I have now proven that you are incorrect.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Please cite this law.

    I say that there is no such law.
    You may be right. I don't know. That's why I said that it was my understanding. I wasn't sure. Also the quotes around the word "law" was meant in part to say that it is my opinion that any such "law" is unconstitutional.
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 12-09-2014 at 08:59 PM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    What you have proven, sir, is that you failed simple outline structure in elementary school.

    The section (A) that you quoted and highlighted in red falls under paragraph (a)(1) and ONLY applies to paragraph (a)(1). I did not quote from paragraph (a)(1). I quoted from paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5) to which the section (A) under paragraph (a)(1) does not apply.

    Paragraph (a)(1) has subsections (which you quoted) (A) and (B) which apply ONLY to paragraph (a)(1). Paragraph (a)(3) (which I quoted) has no subsections. Paragraph (a)(5) (which I also quoted) has it's own subsections (A) and (B) which apply ONLY to paragraph (a)(5).

    That's simple outline structure.

    Further down in the same statute you will see that the level below the subsections such as (A) are labeled as (i) and (ii)....as in (d)(8)(B)(i).
    Read the WHOLE THING.

    I will pull a snippet out so as to help you see.

    The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
    Law is limited to what is listed.

    ----EDIT

    I have noticed that NONE of the attorneys that post here have countered my statement. Only those who trust the system deny what the legal effect of the law is as it is written.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 12-10-2014 at 01:17 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    This is really ... really simple (and has nothing to do with 594). If the firearm you are buying is a handgun, the sale must go through a WA FFL since you are a WA resident and the intended recipient of the handgun. This is a federal requirement per the laws referenced above.

    However, with the passage of 594 and the new requirement that all firearms transfers go through a background check (requiring a FFL) and the federal requirement that the laws of both states involved in a transaction need to be followed, I would deduce that even a long gun purchase from another state needs to go through a WA FFL to be compliant. (Or is the law met as long as any FFL is used??)
    Last edited by acmariner99; 12-10-2014 at 11:01 AM.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by acmariner99 View Post
    This is really ... really simple (and has nothing to do with 594). If the firearm you are buying is a handgun, the sale must go through a WA FFL since you are a WA resident and the intended recipient of the handgun. This is a federal requirement per the laws referenced above.

    However, with the passage of 594 and the new requirement that all firearms transfers go through a background check (requiring a FFL) and the federal requirement that the laws of both states involved in a transaction need to be followed, I would deduce that even a long gun purchase from another state needs to go through a WA FFL to be compliant. (Or is the law met as long as any FFL is used??)
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I don't think that I-594 changed anything in regards to the actual background check performed or recordkeeping requirements for rifles and shotguns (except having to report inheritances) so I would not personally hesitate to receive a rifle or shotgun from an FFL in any other state.
    I-594 did not change anything on out-of-state purchasing of rifles and shotguns.


    RCW 9.41.122
    Out-of-state purchasing.

    Residents of Washington may purchase rifles and shotguns in a state other than Washington: PROVIDED, That such residents conform to the applicable provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, Title IV, Pub. L. 90-351 as administered by the United States secretary of the treasury: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That such residents are eligible to purchase or possess such weapons in Washington and in the state in which such purchase is made.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    However, the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 requires that the purchase of a rifle or shotgun from an out of state FFL must comply with both the state law of the purchaser and the FFL - so if I-594 changed the procedure for purchasing a rifle or shotgun from an FFL in WA state, that change would also apply to out of state FFLs transferring firearms to WA state residents. That being said, I don't see where I-594 changed the procedure or records required for the background check for rifles or shotguns - only the transfers which require it and the out of state transfer always required it anyway.
    But I-594's only modifies the requirements if the sale or transfer or purchaser or seller is in the state of Washington.


    NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
    (1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    So what you are trying to lead us to believe is that not only do you not understand simple outline structure but that you don't know the difference between the terms "includes" and "is limited to".

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/includes



    The only thing the sentence means that you quoted is that the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) are PART OF the term "State". Nowhere in the sentence is there anything in regards to the term "State" being limited to those locations.

    Seriously, your passion for freedom is overruling your intelligence and common sense and it causes you to appear to be an ignorant fool who can't control his emotions.
    In law, includes means limited to what is listed otherwise the law would be vague.

    Do you need some examples? I am would be happy to provide them, just to prove that you are wrong.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    62
    Hey guys thanks for all the comments. Decided not to move forward with the purchase.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    In law, includes means limited to what is listed otherwise the law would be vague.

    Do you need some examples? I am would be happy to provide them, just to prove that you are wrong.
    Not saying this changes your point because it doesn't but "includes" in a definition also could mean other things not listed that are in the same general class as the things that are.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    Not saying this changes your point because it doesn't but "includes" in a definition also could mean other things not listed that are in the same general class as the things that are.
    Not when it comes to law. "Such as" is what you are thinking of. "Includes" and "Including" when used in law means limited to what is listed.

    I will give an example.
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-...79-sec7701.htm
    (a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
    (9) United States

    The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
    (10) State

    The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
    Now here is title 18USC
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-...p44-sec921.htm
    (2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
    Now IF congress and the law really did apply within the, 50, states of the union the congress would never have had to write a definition such as the one that follows.
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-...pA-sec4612.htm
    a) Definitions

    For purposes of this subchapter—
    (4) United States
    (A) In general

    The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
    (B) United States includes continental shelf areas

    The principles of section 638 shall apply for purposes of the term “United States”.
    (C) United States includes foreign trade zones

    The term “United States” includes any foreign trade zone of the United States.
    Now the first and 3rd quotes are from title 26USC. The first one is the one that defines the default terms for the whole title the 3rd one shows that the first one did not include the 50 states in the first place.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 12-11-2014 at 06:52 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Moot point now.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Real lawyers with law degrees who are actually practicing disagree with you:

    http://www.adamsdrafting.com/includi...ut-limitation/



    In the case of the word "includes" in 18 USC 921 and 922, the word "includes" is a word of enlargement and not of limitation, just as the courts have held in the past. By adding the sentence "The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)", Congress in no way intended to exclude the remainder of the 50 states; Congress intended to make it clear that Title 18, Chapter 44 applied to DC, Puerto Rico, and the possessions, IN ADDITION TO the remainder of the 50 states.

    If we go with your utterly and completely foolish interpretation of includes, then in the other 50 states which are not D.C., Puerto Rico, or a possession of the U.S. there is no Federal prohibition of felons possessing firearms, there is no requirement for a NICS check and, in fact, there is no requirement for a dealer in firearms to have an FFL because in 27 CFR 478.11 we see this definition of state:
    http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...8_111&rgn=div8


    Heck, let's apply your interpretation to ALL of the United States Code, shall we?

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1


    So, what you are trying to tell us is that the words above, when used throughout Federal Law are limited to the meanings after the word "include" or "includes" above. That makes you insane (see definition above).

    And, according to you, this all moot anyway because Federal law would apply only to infants and not adults:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
    Explain the citations I posted then.

    Law is limited to what is listed. Period.

    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...011-02-25.html

    http://losthorizons.com/Documents/Includes.pdf

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...lusio+alterius
    Share: Cite / link:

    Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.


    If your theory was correct then title 26 USC would never had had to re-define "United states" and "state".

    That is why.
    “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100.Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another.When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.”
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    There's going to be a lot of people disappointed this Christmas when they open all the boxes that say "batteries included" on them and that's all they get.....batteries.
    Straw man.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    Not saying this changes your point because it doesn't but "includes" in a definition also could mean other things not listed that are in the same general class as the things that are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Not when it comes to law. "Such as" is what you are thinking of. "Includes" and "Including" when used in law means limited to what is listed.

    "The term "includes" imports a general class, some of whose particular instances are those specified in the definition." Helvering v. Morgon's inc (1934)

    "The terms “includes” and “including” do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class." 27 CFR 26.11 and 72.11 (found in other areas of the CFR as well that I am still trying to find)

    "Including....... connotes simply an illustrative example of the general principal" Federal Land Bank Of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co." (1941)


    These are a few examples, I am trying to find more. If you are intersted in an essay I have on the matter PM me and I will try to find it and link it to you.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  25. #25
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Explain the citations I posted then.

    Law is limited to what is listed. Period.

    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...011-02-25.html

    http://losthorizons.com/Documents/Includes.pdf

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...lusio+alterius
    Share: Cite / link:

    Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.


    If your theory was correct then title 26 USC would never had had to re-define "United states" and "state".

    That is why.
    I will jump on the first one you posted.... "includes" was immediately followed by "ONLY".... thus limiting the "includes" to "Only" those listed after....

    "Includes" was not the limiter here, "only" was!


    And for me this destroyed your claim, and I persued it no further!
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 12-12-2014 at 06:14 AM.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •