3 ms·
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 excha
by 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 agoThose 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