They keep using that word; I do not think it means what they think it means
I’m often critical of the use of the term loophole because, well, when used it doesn’t usually refer to a loophole. So, I found this highly amusing:
Senate Approves Loophole For Importing Canadian Drugs
Heh. Now, loopholes are approved by lawmakers.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:17 am
Perhaps, just for giggles, you could give three real examples of things you actually do consider to be loopholes. Because from what I can tell, you seem to argue that there’s simply no such thing as a loophole.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:07 am
Okay, here’s a go… your 401k is a loophole. If I remember correctly, some tax attorney came up with the idea (or “discovered” it in that section of the tax code), implemented it with his clients, defended it in court, (how’d ya like to be that test case?) and won. On the otherhand, the 401k is just following the law, complex as it is.
Of course, a loophole, almost by definition, is following the law. When the assault weapons ban banned rifles by name, changing the name and selling the same rifle was following the law. So was removing enough “evil” features to be legal. On the other hand, the writers of the law most certainly wanted to ban those rifles, but couldn’t get the votes to do so. Loophole, or complying with the law?
Loophole might have had some meaning when laws were generally simple (whenever that might have been) and a loophole was something you had to go to lengths to comply with. But with the majority of laws being complicated (as opposed to, say, murder is illegal) complying with most laws requires a lot of complicated manuevering, “loophole” loses some of its meaning.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:29 am
That might have been true at some point in history, but it’s certainly not an accurate statement of the law today. I don’t see any way to read Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code as anything other than a deliberate act by Congress to allow employees to set aside some of their income for retirement on a tax-deferred basis.
Both. I think that as to any guns in existence at the time of the AW ban, which were considered for the list but not added to it, you have a clear-cut case of simply following the law. It’s tougher to make that argument on models that were designed post-ban solely to circumvent it. There may not be a perfect definition of a “loophole,” but I think a pretty good working definition is a way to escape the spirit of the law without violating its letter, under circumstances its proponents almost certainly would not have allowed if they had known at the time of enactment what is widely known today.
In a similar vein, here’s a way to test Uncle’s theory that there is no gun-show loophole: the Goldilocks standard. Some people oppose all laws requiring background checks. For them, the current law is too strict. Others support background checks for all gun sales, including private ones, or at least including those nominally “private” ones that take place in public marketplaces or by way of licensed dealers selling on consignment. For them the laws are too lax. Does anyone think the current law is “just right?” Anyone? Bueller?
July 12th, 2006 at 10:13 am
The problem is then, driving 55 (or 65, whatever the speed limit is) is a loophole. It’s just doing what’s legal. If in 1933 a manufacturer sold a shotgun with a 15″ barrel, then in 1934 lengthened it to 18″, is that a loophole? Otherwise it’s the same shotgun, just now in compliance with the new law.
I think the best explaination of ‘loophole” is, something A that is close (in my estimation) to something B that is illegal and I would like to A become illegal like B. Therefore, A is taking advantage of a loophole in the law. Sort of like “a technicality” as in, “that miserable crook got off on a technicality.” Which could be equivalent to: “that guy was not convicted because to do so would violate his rights X, Y, and Z.” It just depends on whether or not you like rights in question. Same with loophole, methinks.
Now, there are probably things I might describe as “loopholes.” How about this: city ordinance bans smoking in bars (but not restaurants) and defines bar as a place that only serves drinks. Bar wants to allow smoking, so they now sell peanuts for $5 per airline pack. They sell food, ergo, not bar. (In this example) That, I would think, most folks would describe as a “loophole.” But it’s still just obeying the law to the letter.
Okay, I’ve got nothing. I’m going to shut up now and let the lawyers play. 🙂
July 12th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Inconceivable!
July 13th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
AughtSix:
The problem is then, driving 55 (or 65, whatever the speed limit is) is a loophole.
How do you figure? If the law explicitly sets the speed limit at 55, how is driving 55 “violating the spirit of the law while abiding by the letter of it?” It’s not. It’s called “following the law.”
I like Xrlq’s loose definition. A “loophole” is a way of violating the spirit of the law (its intended effect) without violating the letter of the law (its actual text). If you obey the spirit and letter of the law, that’s just called “following the law.” If you violate the letter of the law, that’s called “breaking the law.” If you violate the spirit of the law without violating the letter of it, that’s a loophole.
As X points out, it’s usually a case of “oops, we didn’t think of that” on behalf of those who drafted the law in the first place.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Tgirsch, good point. It was a bad example. Sounds like we’re all violently agreed with each other. 🙂