I guess that's that.
Went to the Cow Palace for a gun show yesterday. Last one before the silly ammo law goes in to effect and learnt they will have two more shows and that's that. Roll credits. Done. I was told "they" did not re-new the contract for gun shows in 2020. So looks like 2020 will be the build year (again like 2018/2019 was supposed to be until the White Feather and having to squirrel away ammo for the foreseeable future). Also with California "Field Massas" wanting to make home builders get gun parts through FFL. They're talking everything you can get through ebay. Trying their damndest to make guns in to paper weights for everyone except criminals.
So I best update the list of build parts. Kind a liking the carbon fiber barrels for the Mega Arms "MATEN" but I got no issues getting the truck axle of a barrel. I wonder if JP Enterprises still got the roller trigger? It's been a while since I looked at AR10 bits. I'm sure lots of new things came out and other things discontinued since I last looked.
So I best update the list of build parts. Kind a liking the carbon fiber barrels for the Mega Arms "MATEN" but I got no issues getting the truck axle of a barrel. I wonder if JP Enterprises still got the roller trigger? It's been a while since I looked at AR10 bits. I'm sure lots of new things came out and other things discontinued since I last looked.
0
-
Shall Not Be Infringed
Shall Not Be Infringed
Shall Not Be Infringed
Shall Not Be Infringed
Shall Not Be Infringed
Shall Not Be Infringed
Shall Not Be Infringed
Shall Not Be Infringed
Shall Not Be Infringed
you can keep saying it until your face turns blue,
when the ruling authorities don't listen
and the judges don't care,
something must be done-
because something's being done to you.0 -
Agree, the powers that be, will not agree.
The right to keep and bear arms. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Do they not know what Shall means?
Let us be clear. SHALL not means WILL not.
Like in the 10 commandments. Thou shall not...0 -
Well, our forefathers did everything humanly possible to assure that we'd have the right to bear arms including fighting and dying for it plus putting it in writing in the constitution. If we don't have the guts to use what they gave us to protect ourselves from tyranny in the government then it's nobody's fault but our own cowardly selves when guns are confiscated. 0 -
wpageabc wrote:....
Let us be clear. SHALL not means WILL not.
.....
Actually -- It is even stronger than "will not. "Currently, it means, "Must not".
I retired from the government (The FAA) and they define all those words.
So far, the government has not re-worded the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration.
Just to clarify:
https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/
We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. Also, "must not" are the only words you can use to say something is prohibited. Who says so and why?
Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."
Bryan Garner, the legal writing scholar and editor of Black's Law Dictionary wrote that "In most legal instruments, shall violates the presumption of consistency?which is why shall is among the most heavily litigated words in the English language."
Those are some of the reasons why these documents compel us to use the word "must" when we mean "mandatory:"
The Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook (Section 3) states "Use ?must? instead of ?shall? to impose a legal obligation on your reader."
The Federal Plain Language Guidelines (page 25) (PDF) referred to in the Federal Plain Writing Act of 2010, compel the FAA and every federal department to "use ?must,? not ?shall?" to indicate requirements.
FAA Plain Language Writing Order 1000.36, (page 4) (PDF) says avoid the word "shall" and use "must" to impose requirements, including contracts.
Until recently, law schools taught attorneys that "shall" means "must." That's why many attorneys and executives think "shall" means "must." It's not their fault. The Federal Plain Writing Act and the Federal Plain Language Guidelines only appeared in 2010. And the fact is, even though "must" has come to be the only clear, valid way to express "mandatory," most parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) that govern federal departments still use the word "shall" for that purpose.
With time, laws evolve to reflect new knowledge and standards. During this transition, "must" remains the safe, enlightened choice not only because it imposes clarity on the concept of obligation, but also because it does not contradict any instance of "shall" in the CFRs." Right now, federal departments go through their documents to replace all the "shalls" with "must." It's a big hassle. If you look at page A-2, section q (PDF) of this link, it shows a sample of how a typical federal order describes this shift from "shall" to "must." Don't go through this tedious process. If you mean mandatory, write "must." If you mean prohibited, write "must not."
What should you say if someone tells you "shall is a perfectly good word?" Always agree with them because they're correct! But in your next breath, be sure to say "yes, shall is a perfectly good word, but it's not a perfectly good word of obligation."0 -
how about those "shall issue" states? that meant "must issue". and that is in contrast to the other jurisdictions where the sheriff "may issue" at his discretion. they made a clear distinction between the two. 0 -
Thank you for the clarity on the "shall" term. In biblical terms. "Thou must not kill " does give the command a stronger feel.
In terms of the 2nd amendment to the constitution...
The right of the people to keep and bear arms. MUST not be infringed. Yes, that has a powerful ring to it.0 -
In my writing and grammar classes, we were taught that "shall" implies a decision, whereas "will" implies inevitability. For example, "The sun will rise at 6 a.m., and then I shall have breakfast."
That conflicts with the current (many decades later) definition of shall in a legal sense. The Constitution writers no doubt used a more biblical definition of shall, but the language has drifted away from that today.
I doubt very much if there could be any global substitution of must for shall in the Constitution without going through the formal revision process. Changing even one word of the Constitution would be risky and certainly would result in lengthy litigation - likely for each and every instance.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments