[T]he Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public. The Court also notes that the Town’s justifications are somewhat undermined by the other subsections of this very provision. Specifically, subsection (b)(1) provides that “[a]ny person holding a valid federal firearms license from possession of any firearm authorized pursuant to such license” will not be subject to the prohibition of 10-9-40. The following subsection, (b)(2) likewise exempts any “firearm for which the U.S. Government has issued a stamp or permit pursuant to the National Firearms Act.” The National Firearms Act, referenced in the latter subsection, provides for permitting such firearms as short-barreled shotguns and rifles, machineguns, and silencers. Each of those weapons is arguably even more deadly than the semi-automatic weapons that the Town of Superior seeks to ban, yet these provisions would permit individuals to possess, sell, or otherwise transfer them. [More]
Let’s see if any of the NAGR critics are willing to grudgingly admit they’re doing good here.
[Via Antigone]
