5 ms·

I am of the opposite view; if the people do not know and understand the rules, then then they cannot be expected to abide by them. There are so many criminal,

by nickff 10y ago

I am of the opposite view; if the people do not know and understand the rules, then then they cannot be expected to abide by them. There are so many criminal, civil, and regulatory laws that the people could not possibly be expected to know, that the system is unfair. Lawyers will often say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but that is a manifestly unreasonable doctrine when even the regulators, legislators, and prosecutors have no idea of how many laws there are, and what is illegal. My view is that there should be two classes in grade 10; one on criminal law, and one on civil, and the laws should never be more complex or more numerous than can be explained to a 15 year-old in those two semesters. I think most people would agree that using a firearm is shooting it, but that problem would easily be solved by changing the word to "discharging" it.

maxerickson 10y ago
So pointing a loaded pistol at a clerk while robbing a store is then not using the firearm?
- nickff 10y ago
  No, pointing any firearm at a clerk would be assault (with a weapon), whether or not it was loaded. If I told you that I went to a shooting range and used my gun, what would you think? That I'd pointed it at stuff? If I said that I went out onto the street and used my rifle, you would not surmise that I had looked over the iron sights. note: I do not own a firearm
  - brewdad 10y ago
    So assault...using a firearm.
    - nickff 10y ago
      I believe that most (all?) laws refer to such behavior as assault 'with a weapon' or 'with a firearm'. Google auto-corrects 'assault using a firearm' to 'assault with a firearm'.
  - massysett 10y ago
    What if you take your rifle and use it to beat someone upside the head? Is that using it? The case in question concerned someone who used the firearm to exchange it for drugs. Is that "use"? The Court said yes, with dissenters. The point is that these sorts of questions crop up all the time even with well-drafted rules and regulations. So courts have decisions...and they write them down. So legislators make the statutes more detailed...and they write them down. So administrators make regulations and interpretations...and they write them down. The only way to cut it to "100 pages" is to stop writing things down, which leads to law that is arbitrary and inequitable.
    - nickff 10y ago
      Those are mostly cases of the courts trying to interpret laws in creative ways to reach conclusions they like. Cases like Bond and Yates prove that many prosecutors are willing to stretch laws, and get many courts to agree with those broad interpretations of the law.[1][2] My view is that they should read the laws more strictly. Do you expect the average citizen to have read all the civil and criminal laws of your state and country, in addition to all the opinions by appelate courts? If the answer to that is no, then you should not expect that citizen to abide by a body of law of which they are unaware. You might as well write the laws in secret and hide them from the people, because the current volume of law is equivalent to obfuscation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    You'd still be using the firearm, though. You wouldn't have shot it, but you used the threat of shooting it.
    - nickff 10y ago
      Would saying you'd go home, and come back with your firearm still be using it? What about threatening to go buy a firearm? How about saying you once went to a shooting range and shot a firearm? Telling a story about going hunting with a gun? Talking about an episode of "How it's Made" where they made a firearm?
      - st3v3r 10y ago
        Your comment is ridiculous to the point of lunacy. And it's far too far removed from the subject matter for you to try to claim some argument ad absurdum crap. The fact of the matter is that, in that situation, you still had the gun pointed in someone's face.
st3v3r 10y ago
It's complex because there are many, many edge cases in laws. And not all of them are codified, but many are discovered after the fact, and so court rulings become part of the law.
BHSPitMonkey 10y ago
The law recognizes brandishing as a type of offense.

by nickff 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

So pointing a loaded pistol at a clerk while robbing a store is then not using the firearm?

nickff 10y ago
No, pointing any firearm at a clerk would be assault (with a weapon), whether or not it was loaded. If I told you that I went to a shooting range and used my gun, what would you think? That I'd pointed it at stuff? If I said that I went out onto the street and used my rifle, you would not surmise that I had looked over the iron sights. note: I do not own a firearm
- brewdad 10y ago
  So assault...using a firearm.
  - nickff 10y ago
    I believe that most (all?) laws refer to such behavior as assault 'with a weapon' or 'with a firearm'. Google auto-corrects 'assault using a firearm' to 'assault with a firearm'.
- massysett 10y ago
  What if you take your rifle and use it to beat someone upside the head? Is that using it? The case in question concerned someone who used the firearm to exchange it for drugs. Is that "use"? The Court said yes, with dissenters. The point is that these sorts of questions crop up all the time even with well-drafted rules and regulations. So courts have decisions...and they write them down. So legislators make the statutes more detailed...and they write them down. So administrators make regulations and interpretations...and they write them down. The only way to cut it to "100 pages" is to stop writing things down, which leads to law that is arbitrary and inequitable.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Those are mostly cases of the courts trying to interpret laws in creative ways to reach conclusions they like. Cases like Bond and Yates prove that many prosecutors are willing to stretch laws, and get many courts to agree with those broad interpretations of the law.[1][2] My view is that they should read the laws more strictly. Do you expect the average citizen to have read all the civil and criminal laws of your state and country, in addition to all the opinions by appelate courts? If the answer to that is no, then you should not expect that citizen to abide by a body of law of which they are unaware. You might as well write the laws in secret and hide them from the people, because the current volume of law is equivalent to obfuscation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States
- st3v3r 10y ago
  You'd still be using the firearm, though. You wouldn't have shot it, but you used the threat of shooting it.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Would saying you'd go home, and come back with your firearm still be using it? What about threatening to go buy a firearm? How about saying you once went to a shooting range and shot a firearm? Telling a story about going hunting with a gun? Talking about an episode of "How it's Made" where they made a firearm?
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      Your comment is ridiculous to the point of lunacy. And it's far too far removed from the subject matter for you to try to claim some argument ad absurdum crap. The fact of the matter is that, in that situation, you still had the gun pointed in someone's face.

st3v3r 10y ago

It's complex because there are many, many edge cases in laws. And not all of them are codified, but many are discovered after the fact, and so court rulings become part of the law.

BHSPitMonkey 10y ago

The law recognizes brandishing as a type of offense.