2 ms·

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 g

by 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.

by nickff 10y ago

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.