View Single Post
Old February 5, 2009, 04:08 PM   #55
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
The problem is that neither of those definitions distinguish between normal functioning and malfunctioning firearms. The result is that the Staples definition excludes rifles like Olofson's that probably were illegally modified but don't fire in a safe or controlled fashion. Meanwhile, the statutory definition covers rifles that are merely malfunctioning. This is the key problem that should concern gunowners.
How does either definition exlude the firearm in question?


Quote:
As used here, the terms "automatic" and "fully automatic" refer to a weapon that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger. That is, once its trigger is depressed, the weapon will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted
This definition would include intentionally modifed firearms like olofsons. I don't see how it wouldn't.

Unless you are arguing that because said weapon jammed or malfunctioned constantly when firing automatically it didn't meet the definition of staples because it didn't continue to fire while the trigger was depressed until the trigger was released or ammo expended. Which from the Lou Dobb's piece I saw is part of the defenses argument. That is a really dumb argument.

The firearm in question didn't malfunction in the sense that the malfunction was the cause of the automatic fire. It malfunctioned in the sense that it didn't fire perfectly when in auto.
vranasaurus is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03396 seconds with 8 queries