dirtykoala
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 644
imported post
edit!
edit!
Well, if I accidentally stumble into a school zone (i.e. turning the corner in an unfamiliar neighborhood and find that you're standing next to the playground of a school) I would probably field strip the barrel out of my gun and carry it separate until I was out of the zone.
[SNIP]Worst case: an empty mag is a 'firearm'.
See People v Hale. Sometimes the courts just make shit up.CA_Libertarian wrote:[SNIP]Worst case: an empty mag is a 'firearm'.
How can an empty mag be a 'firearm'? It does not meet the plain reading of the definition in PC12001(b):
"(b) As used in this title, "firearm" means any device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion."
An empty mag does not have a barrel and by itself is not designed to be used as a weapon.
I think you are stretching the wording in People v. Hale a little far. I am pretty sure that the decision in People v. Hale states that a concealed magazine, in the presence of an exposed firearm is the equivalent of a concealed firearm. I don't think it has ever been put forth that it meant that an empty magazine all by itself would even begin to be considered a firearm.Sons of Liberty wrote:See People v Hale. Sometimes the courts just make @#$% up.CA_Libertarian wrote:[SNIP]Worst case: an empty mag is a 'firearm'.
How can an empty mag be a 'firearm'? It does not meet the plain reading of the definition in PC12001(b):
"(b) As used in this title, "firearm" means any device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion."
An empty mag does not have a barrel and by itself is not designed to be used as a weapon.
You are correct, but was Hale not a stretch of the definition in the first place? I don't think it's too far-fetched to believe the court may decide to stretch that definition even further.
Maybe I'm overly cautious... but in the past I feel that's proven an asset more than a liability.
Here is the problem with that. . .CA_Libertarian wrote:You are correct, but was Hale not a stretch of the definition in the first place? I don't think it's too far-fetched to believe the court may decide to stretch that definition even further.
Maybe I'm overly cautious... but in the past I feel that's proven an asset more than a liability.
While I believe that the court did stretch on Hale, to give the court more than they ruled on is doing the oppositions job for them.
I believe it is our job to know the law as written and interpreted by the courts, and act within it, and also to try to change the law.
If we limit ourselves to acting within what we think the courts might possibly in the future legislate, then the courts and the anti-2A crowd don't have to do any work, because we have already done their work.
I have found that this attitude of "making new law" is not uncommon among attorneys. In my college studies I took a course on "Constitutional Law". The professor was a practicing attorney, who bragged at how the judicial process 'made better law' than the legislature.The DA in my case knew and admitted that the law, as it was written and understood, I did not break the law. His argument was that the law should have included me because that was the legislative intent of the law. So even if it exempts me and I did not break the law, the law was wrong, so the courts should make it right.