Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: NRA Raises $200 Million as Gun Lobby Toasters Burn Logo on Bread [View all]pipoman
(16,038 posts)on any subject has definite, unambiguous language which sets guidelines for compliance. Virtually every entity effected by laws and restrictions make their product or service conform...often, maybe even usually, they are on the verge of noncompliance. This goes to vehicle makers and cafe standards, employers and employment law, journalists,..everyone..most people drive a couple of mph over the posted speed limit, but within the built in margin, particularly on highways. Larry Flint and Fred Phelps certainly are good examples of pushing right to the line of acceptability. Fact is, I can't think of a single law or restriction which any effected party bothers to try to determine intent of the lawmakers when attempting to be in compliance...no, they depend on the actual language in the law to be sure they are in compliance..if ambiguity is determined later by the restricting agency or lawmakers, they have an amendment process to clear up that ambiguity. Laws don't have faces, they have words, if the words are unclear or noninclusive then the words must be rearranged.
Even the BATFE couldn't write a definition of "Assault Weapon" when asked by lawmakers. Laws.....all laws, are written with words with common legal definitions, if the common legal definition isn't quite right for the application, the word is set forth in the law with a definition which only applies to the law being written. If the term "assault weapon" were not ambiguous, or was clearly defined, there would be no problem. I think it was Carolyn McCarthy who said at one point, when asked to define "assault weapon", that 'I know one when I see one', which seems to be what you are expecting manufacturers to abide by. This isn't an acceptable legal standard regardless the subject.