Wall Street Journal - Gun advocates open a new front, open carry leading the way

imported post

A loophole is a way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading complianc.It can also be a small hole or slit in a wall, especially one through which small arms may be fired.

imported post

I have it on good authority there is no such thing as a loop hole. If something is not prohibited, it is permitted.
Loop holes don't exist, just like 'air pockets'.

imported post

Rich Keagy wrote:

I have it on good authority there is no such thing as a loop hole. If something is not prohibited, it is permitted.
Loop holes don't exist, just like 'air pockets'.

Click to expand...

I think a loophole occurs when an activity was intended to be prohibited, but a flaw in the wording does not prohibit it, or when a law is deliberately worded as to appear to prohibit an activity, but, for some nefarious reason, does not actually prohibit it.

For an example of a loophole, check out the guns on the Mall thread.

Loopholes and air pockets exist just as surely as the number zero does.

imported post

I just can't buy the idea that the writers of a law perhaps misused words or said something the wrong way, or forgot something.
I worked for a small county government before I retired. When we wanted to draft a new ordinance, we first solicited similar ordinances from surrounding counties and other entities that have had success with their laws.
Things were gone over very carefully. I'm not saying the process is perfect, but you'll have to ask the writers their original intent to discern whether something was overlooked, an honest mistake or that it was purposely omitted.

imported post

Again, check out the Mall thread. The authors of the law clearly would have wanted DC to exercise authority over the bearing of arms at national parks within the boundary of DC. However, the used the word "state." Furthermore, they defined "state" to mean a State, a territory, or a possession, none of which DC is.

Loophole. If one were arrested for carrying on the Mall, which surely the authors intended to be against the law, the defense would be pretty easy: By black-letter law, DC does NOT have jurisdiction in the matter of bearing arms in national parks within boundaries of DC.

Yeah, it was foolish on the part of the drafters, but drafters of law often end up with laws that say something other than they intended.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Again, check out the Mall thread. The authors of the law clearly would have wanted DC to exercise authority over the bearing of arms at national parks within the boundary of DC. However, the used the word "state." Furthermore, they defined "state" to mean a State, a territory, or a possession, none of which DC is.

Loophole. If one were arrested for carrying on the Mall, which surely the authors intended to be against the law, the defense would be pretty easy: By black-letter law, DC does NOT have jurisdiction in the matter of bearing arms in national parks within boundaries of DC.

Yeah, it was foolish on the part of the drafters, but drafters of law often end up with laws that say something other than they intended.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? DC laws apply on federal land in DC.

imported post

okboomer wrote:

Yeah, that one bothered me also ... other than Kalifornia, is there any state where anyone has to exploit any loopholes to purchase a SEMI-AUTO RIFLE?

Some serious fear-mongering going on there!

Click to expand...

I think there are "assault rifle" restrictions in CT, NJ, and a couple of others. Living in NY, I can tell you that the "loophole finding" in my state means purchasing "preban" semiauto rifles, or "postban" units with a minimum of "evil" features, such as collapsible/folding stocks, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, etc. For instance, a brand-new AR-15 with a fixed stock, pistol grip, no bayonet lug, and a ten-round magazine is fine.
Magazine capacity is limited to ten rounds or fewer, unless the magazine is "provably" preban. The onus is on the person "caught" with the hi-cap mag has to prove it's preban, not for the prosecution.

imported post

Mike wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Again, check out the Mall thread. The authors of the law clearly would have wanted DC to exercise authority over the bearing of arms at national parks within the boundary of DC. However, the used the word "state." Furthermore, they defined "state" to mean a State, a territory, or a possession, none of which DC is.

Loophole. If one were arrested for carrying on the Mall, which surely the authors intended to be against the law, the defense would be pretty easy: By black-letter law, DC does NOT have jurisdiction in the matter of bearing arms in national parks within boundaries of DC.

Yeah, it was foolish on the part of the drafters, but drafters of law often end up with laws that say something other than they intended.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? DC laws apply on federal land in DC.

Click to expand...

In the Mall thread, Dreamer pointed out that the new parks law on guns contains some faulty language that would keep DC gun laws from applying in national parks within the boundaries of DC. This is new law that deals with the matter of gun law jurisdiction in national parks. Being the newer law, it would override previous laws on the subject.

Check it out. I believe that Dreamer is on to something. Based on what he has found, I don't see anyone getting convicted of violating DC gun laws on federal park land contained within the boundaries of DC.

This is surely not what the authors of the law intended. But, laws don't always say what the authors meant them to say!

Disclaimer: I am not advocating anyone strap on a gun and walk around the Mall. You will surely get arrested and be in for the hassle of your life. I am simply saying that the law is flawed--flawed enough to where I am convinced you will not be convicted.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Mike wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Again, check out the Mall thread. The authors of the law clearly would have wanted DC to exercise authority over the bearing of arms at national parks within the boundary of DC. However, the used the word "state."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The Coburn Amendment merely restricts reachof NPS Reg. 2.4. Has nothing to do with other laws - they all remain in effect.

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

So very true! The SCCC while well intended and working under difficult circumstances has limited their focus on but one aspect of carry. Expanding their horizons cannot but help them.

IMO an anti open carry stance (Texas) did measurable harm to them.

Click to expand...

Yes, I was very disappointed when SCCC began to alienate and impede the efforts of OC supporters in Texas during the previous legislative session. I found it difficult to support their narrow, exclusive agenda after that. Still, I wish them success in their efforts. Freedom is freedom.