Contrary to your contention, the law looks at the manner in which an object (including hands or feet) is used. If that object is used in a manner that is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury, then it is a deadly weapon.
Thus, the term "deadly weapon" can be situational. For instance, if a 120 lb nerd punches a 240 lb football player in the chest, the Court is not likely to find that the fist in that case was a deadly weapon. However, if the 240 lb football player punches the 120 lb nerd in the head and then gets on top of him on the ground and then begins to pummel him in the head and face with his hands, the Court would likely find that the hands in that instance were deadly weapons.
However, in other instances, there is no situational aspect to the deadly weapon. A gun, a golf club wielded as a skull bashing device, a knife, or other like instrumentality will virtually always be considered to be a deadly weapon if used in an assaultive manner against another.
Learn the law. What you think is the law, isn't the law.
Um, It wasn’t ‘law’ I was citing, it was logic [and possibly language].
And just because things have been ‘held’ a certain way by the courts does not mean it is correct.
Take, for example, Ex Post Facto law; the Constitution specifically bars it and it bars it twice: on the federal level and on the state level and it is an UNQUALIFIED prohibition that the Constitution places thereon. However, the Supreme court in the 1798 case Calder v. Bull held that the Constitutional prohibition applied only to CRIMINAL law.
The Congress has made use of this decision to pass Ex Post Facto tax-laws which they claim are “administrative” or “regulatory,” yet violations of these laws are pursued by the IRS in CRIMINAL courts.
So then, are these laws criminal? if so, then these laws are invalid as per the USSC’s declaration that the prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws applies to criminal laws.
Or are they not criminal? in that case, why does the IRS pursue people in Criminal courts?