[trashman]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

I don't think so. Again, I'm not going to argue it here...has anyone ever won a statutory interpretation argument here after getting dogpiled at Calguns?

<john cleese> Ahhh...do I detect the scent of burning martyr? </cleese>

Seriously though, why would you seek that kind of validation on the internet, anyway?

Here's my dilemma: I think it's a little reckless to tell people that BB equipped rifles with prohibited features are "100% friggin' legal" (bwiese said that once on one of the message boards). I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as that.

There is no chance of validation of the competing argument here, which is why it would be tempting for me to provide commentary in the OAL proceedings. I'd be conlicted about doing that but if it were done in the context of a wager that would be different.

So I'm not understanding what your dilemma is, exactly. But it sounds like you're just inherently uncomfortable with the opposition's inability to write anti-gun statutes that clearly reflect their intent -- and you'd rather we just skip all the legal wrangling and stop using BB-configured OLLs.

Have I got that right?

--Neill