PDA

View Full Version : DOJ definition is based on a negative arguement


GJJ
06-29-2006, 12:06 PM
Penal Code (PC) section 12276.1 identifies restricted assault weapons based on specific characteristics or features. Currently, California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 978.20 of Title 11 defines five terms used in § 12276.1 PC. The proposed amendment will define a sixth term, "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", as meaning "capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine."

They state what is not construed to be a detachable magazine. Do they state what IS construed to be capable of accommodating a detachable magazine?

You can't define something by stating what it is not.

bwiese
06-29-2006, 12:44 PM
Penal Code (PC) section 12276.1 identifies restricted assault weapons based on specific characteristics or features. Currently, California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 978.20 of Title 11 defines five terms used in § 12276.1 PC. The proposed amendment will define a sixth term, "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", as meaning "capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine."

They state what is not construed to be a detachable magazine. Do they state what IS construed to be capable of accommodating a detachable magazine?

You can't define something by stating what it is not.

Legally, they probably can, esp as that outlines limits of 'capable of...'

The wording may get rehashed over one or two cycles of comments...

kenc9
06-29-2006, 12:55 PM
Penal Code (PC) section 12276.1 identifies restricted assault weapons based on specific characteristics or features. Currently, California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 978.20 of Title 11 defines five terms used in § 12276.1 PC. The proposed amendment will define a sixth term, "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", as meaning "capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine."

They state what is not construed to be a detachable magazine. Do they state what IS construed to be capable of accommodating a detachable magazine?

You can't define something by stating what it is not.
That is exactly why this (f) has about the same impact as the memo. If they use the word "readily" or "capable" or ten other ways means nothing.

Then just as amusing they go on to describe a "permanent" Mag without giving a defination of that!

They might of done as well as just saying illegal AW's are illegal...and of course the legal ones are still legal.

On top of that, these rules are for the AR/AK series assault rifles and untill they list and include these as such they don't have impact on OLL's.

-ken

bwiese
06-29-2006, 1:11 PM
On top of that, these rules are for the AR/AK series assault rifles and untill they list and include these as such they don't have impact on OLL's.
-ken

Wrong!

Read the preamble to 978.20; these are relevant to anything that can be described by 12276.1, which defines AWs in a generic fashion. This includes OLL stuff and FAL clones.

Also, this may not be the final wording.

kenc9
06-29-2006, 1:26 PM
Wrong!

Read the preamble to 978.20; these are relevant to anything that can be described by 12276.1, which defines AWs in a generic fashion. This includes OLL stuff and FAL clones.

Also, this may not be the final wording.
Correct, my mistake, I confused the memo title and this one as having the same title.

None the less this (F) states only “capacity to accept a detachable magazine” means capable of accommodating a detachable magazine,

And (a) describes what a detachable Mag. is and if a tool is needed or if disassembly of the rifle is needed then it is not detachable.

-ken

BorderBrewer
06-29-2006, 11:42 PM
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

James Madison (1751-1836)
4th U.S. President, U.S. Secretary of State and U.S. Congressman

kantstudien
06-30-2006, 12:07 AM
You can't define something by stating what it is not.

Sure you can, it is called a dysjunctive syllogism.

1. I am going to kick nonono or chew bubblegum
2. I am out of bubblegum
Therefore, I am going to kick nonono

:D

Wulf
06-30-2006, 6:40 AM
This is just another example of liberals not being able to be honest with the public about the real nature of their policy goals. Saying they want to ban all guns would loose them elections and an invite constutional challange. So instead they have to create convolute and artificial definitions to create a subset of the world of firearms (where no real subset actually exists) that they think there's small enough support for that they can still get 51% of the vote and not totally run afoul the 2nd.

This is the same approach gives you the current mess of a tax code we have cause they're trying to implement socialisim without being honest about it.

GJJ
06-30-2006, 9:05 AM
"Trying to implement socialism?"

No. It is here big time.

1. Socialism security.
2. Our complete tax code A-Z penalizing producers. If you think about it, everyone should have to pay the same tax amount (not flat tax rate) with no exceptions. I think $1000 a person is fair.
3. Public schools. Why should you have to pay for the education of other people's kids?

I could go on and on...

Ford8N
06-30-2006, 9:11 AM
"Trying to implement socialism?"

No. It is here big time.

1. Socialism security.
2. Our complete tax code A-Z penalizing producers. If you think about it, everyone should have to pay the same tax amount (not flat tax rate) with no exceptions. I think $1000 a person is fair.
3. Public schools. Why should you have to pay for the education of other people's kids?

I could go on and on...


You should have to pay for other peoples kids education. It's for the greater good of society, Comrade.;)

Clodbuster
06-30-2006, 11:13 AM
So is banning red meat... You can live longer, continue to work to a ripe old age, and not be a burden on the medical system.


Clod

You should have to pay for other peoples kids education. It's for the greater good of society, Comrade.;)

GJJ
06-30-2006, 11:57 AM
Red meat is not bad for you. I eat it once a day and am in top physical condition. As a matter of fact, red meat is one of the key portions of my diet. You need it. No other type of protien rebuilds a body as well under physical stress.

At 44 years old I lift weights 3 times a week, run 5 miles a day, stretch, and grapple with 20 year olds in Gracie Jiu Jitsu. I win some and lose some. But, I never lose because of conditioning.

Red meat phobia is a myth.

blacklisted
06-30-2006, 12:01 PM
Red meat is not bad for you. I eat it once a day and am in top physical condition. As a matter of fact, red meat is one of the key portions of my diet. You need it. No other type of protien rebuilds a body as well under physical stress.

At 44 years old I lift weights 3 times a week, run 5 miles a day, stretch, and grapple with 20 year olds in Gracie Jiu Jitsu. I win some and lose some. But, I never lose because of conditioning.

Red meat phobia is a myth.

Just look at who the myth is coming from: Vegans such as PETA. Bunch of freaks!

adamsreeftank
06-30-2006, 8:57 PM
"Trying to implement socialism?"

No. It is here big time.

1. Socialism security.
2. Our complete tax code A-Z penalizing producers. If you think about it, everyone should have to pay the same tax amount (not flat tax rate) with no exceptions. I think $1000 a person is fair.
3. Public schools. Why should you have to pay for the education of other people's kids?

I could go on and on...

I agree. In addition to getting rid of the public schools, we should also get rid of the military and the border patrol. If you don't want illegals squatting in your yard or terrorist setting up training camps in Arizona, you should go out and do something about it yourself. Sitting around and expecting someone else to protect your interest is just STUPID. Heck, why pay ANY taxes. I say everyman for themselves. It worked in Road Warrior.

GJJ
07-01-2006, 6:27 AM
I am not as extreme as you. I'll let the govt have the power to make an army in troubled times (no standing army) and build a few roads. That is pretty close to everything they need to do.

grammaton76
07-01-2006, 11:26 AM
2. Our complete tax code A-Z penalizing producers. If you think about it, everyone should have to pay the same tax amount (not flat tax rate) with no exceptions. I think $1000 a person is fair.
3. Public schools. Why should you have to pay for the education of other people's kids?

I could go on and on...

I don't feel that home schoolers should have to pay public school taxes, for one thing. I was home schooled, and never saw a dime of the money my parents paid in taxes to support local schools.

I will say, however, that I feel a fixed percent is more fair than $X/person/yr. There's no reason to give the under class valid grounds for sob stories about how they can't feed their kids while paying taxes - a percentage based should have more even participation than $X/yr would see.

On a side note, anyone who pays a flat tax to God knows that it's really simple to deal with. You get a check for $X from work, you put a check for $X/10 into the plate (or in my case, the mail). Absolutely simple, the way it was meant to be.

mblat
07-01-2006, 12:00 PM
You should have to pay for other peoples kids education. It's for the greater good of society, Comrade.;)

because if you won't pay for it they end up uneducated and you'll end up living in 3rd world country....
after all taking this logic to the end - why you should pay for the police/DA/FBI - you can by you own guns and make sure that laws are enforced in you own peace of property....

adamsreeftank
07-02-2006, 1:18 AM
because if you won't pay for it they end up uneducated and you'll end up living in 3rd world country....
after all taking this logic to the end - why you should pay for the police/DA/FBI - you can by you own guns and make sure that laws are enforced in you own peace of property....

Yeah. It would be like a perfect utopian society. Kind of like Somalia.

GJJ
07-02-2006, 4:58 AM
If you don't pay for other kids education... they'll do bad things to you.

- that is extortion.

This is how socialism gets it's foothold.

Remember - If we don't control guns, criminals will use them to ______ (fill in the blank.)

adamsreeftank
07-02-2006, 10:32 PM
If you don't pay for other kids education... they'll do bad things to you.

- that is extortion.

This is how socialism gets it's foothold.

Remember - If we don't control guns, criminals will use them to ______ (fill in the blank.)

That's not extortion. That's life.

If you don't pay for courts and jails, the rapist and murderers would be running rampant in the streets. They would find your family when you are not around to protect them. Unless you want to make every cop the judge jury and executioner. But then, who would pay their salary. Are you going to slap on a home made badge and keep your neighborhood safe?

I don't see what the costs of a civil society and gun control have to do with each other, much less socialism. If you have an example from history of a perfect society where people only paid what they wanted to the government, they had open access to weapons, and things did not devolve into complete anarchy, maybe you can enlighten me.

I personally don't see any conflict between wanting good public schools for all children, reasonably priced or free health care for all citizens, and the right to keep and bear arms, as was mentioned in the Second Amendment.

(Sorry this thread has gotten so side-tracked. If the admins want me to shut up, I will.)

GJJ
07-03-2006, 5:45 AM
"I personally don't see any conflict between wanting good public schools for all children, reasonably priced or free health care for all citizens..."

My head hurts. We are doomed.