@uncephalized
Check pictures in about 6Ø seconds.

Maybe I should write a bullshit technical paper full of terrible grammar and spelling, written in pseudo-engineering jargon, and riddled with logical inconsistencies, require you to read it in full and then relentlessly call you a liar if you don't memorize it in its entirety the first time you go through it.

On the other hand that kind of sounds like a waste of everyone's time.

Your picture is just the text of Title I. Fine. If you think that's adequate for legal purposes, OK, you're free to disagree with me. We'd have to run it by a legal scholar to settle that issue.

The ammo thing is pretty fucking hilarious though IMO.

Catching up...

*"As for the ammunition, your claim is that you INTENTIONALLY left a giant loophole in the law that completely defeats its stated purpose?""
Uh, no, only the part about requiring to carry loaded.
*"Maybe I should write a bullshit technical paper full of terrible grammar and spelling, written in pseudo-engineering jargon, and riddled with logical inconsistencies, require you to read it in full and then relentlessly call you a liar if you don't memorize it in its entirety the first time you go through it."*
Go ahead.
And try.

Now I've got five people screaming at me, I need a nap, AND you're annoying me... Excuse me.
Oh, and seriously, write that paper.

"Uh, no, only the part about requiring to carry loaded."

So 'yes, Ceph, that is exactly what I did, 100% correct.'

"AND you're annoying me..."
Well thank God it's mutual. I might even stop if you admit you have no reason to call me a liar.

Go take your nap. I hope you feel better.

He's not stupid. Just irritating.

Congrats, you noticed the obvious @uncephalized, I delibrately wrote it that you don't have to carry loaded.
Wow.
Amazing.
And now you're lying to me, about me.

@Legalize
I insult liars, yes.
It's quite ironic, because someone got one over on me today... And I'm actually proud of him.
Because he didn't lie to me.

Did you get your nap, @Mandatory Carry?

"I deliberately wrote it that you don't have to carry loaded"

WHY?

That just makes the whole thing even more ridiculous than it was to begin with.

Is there a section that defines what an applicable firearm is? Or can I bring my licensed shoestring with me? :^)

@Beemann there are delineations and definitions of terms like "firearm" which includes laser guns and phasers btw, and "shotguns" and "assault weapon" etc

Idk maybe he meant Israeli carry (loaded but no round in the chamber)

I should real this bill in full again

I'm clearly missing something

@uncephalized
*"Did you get your nap, @Mandatory Carry?"*
No. Every time I doze off I snap back. 😒

*"I deliberately wrote it that you don't have to carry loaded"
WHY?*
Because some people aren't comfortable with chamber carry; If they don't want to go there, ¿why force it? Hell, I was once one of that crowd.

@A. Spader
Either or. Hell, it's not even like it mandates open or concealed carry; It just prohibits the states from mandating either or from passing *may issue* and *good cause* requirements.

Idk you might add a requirement for ammunition in the magazine. Carrying a firearm without ammo is gonna get you killed

And same. I Israeli carried for the first month I had a ccw

huh, CQC?

...
I *will* work on that issue.
See, *that* is what intelligent argument looks like;
*'This is an issue.'*
**Oh. Damn, that never occurred to me. I mean, you'd think it'd be obvious, but...**

@Beemann I believe 'firearm' is already defined in federal law so presumably Mandy's bill not mentioning it just means firearm means the same thing it means in previous federal statutes with definitions

Which is why I brought up the shoelace

Wait you mean using this to curcumvent the NFA? Gee I hope so

I mean will we be able to circumvent this because of silly ATF decisions

Such as having our fully automatic 14inch shoestrings

Just slip in a little innocuous *"Anyone in compliance with this law shall not be subject to the NFA"*

Or will the Mandy Tory Carrie law also require rigid redefinition of firearms so as not to include outliers or the later inclusion of outliers

Right but I mean for undermining the law

A component that allows for conversion to full auto fire is defined as a machinegun by the ATF

@Legalize based

Which is why they sent out a letter warning about shoestring use in 04

hey man, his bill includes laser guns and energy weapons be grateful

So my belt, being a component in bump firing, is a machinegun

pew pew

I'll just get it registered and away I go

*"I'd like to register this pillow as a form 1 supressor"*

Every American citizen with a bed is not in compliance with the NFA 😎 😎 😎

If I understand it correctly it's sort of dumber than that

See, it's not illegal to own a shoestring, but it's illegal to use your shoestring as a conversion component, so you would need to license your shoestring as a machine gun to use it for that purpose

I think they later changed their decision on the shoestrings, but it could easily happen again