Wayneactia wrote:Greater Cesnica wrote:OOC: I have done both IC and OOC here. As for the draft itself- GAR #235 uses vague and flawed language to an extent that its provisions can very easily be interpreted in ways that the author didn't intend.
How exactly would you know how Cowardly Pacificts intended provisions to be interpreted?
Also, how is this not legislating within a repeal:Noting that the Child Firearm Safety Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
Signaling guns, and
Pellet guns for pest control,
Seems to me like the WA is now defining what a firearm is, within a repeal.
Since it defines what potential definitions of "firearm" would be, then it looks like under the assumption it's legislating for some ban or restriction on those items.