What Part of ‘In Common Use’ Don’t You Understand?: How Courts Have Defied Heller in Arms-ban Cases — Again [More]
What I still don’t understand: What if it’s not “in common use” by the public, but is by the military/LE, like post-’86 select-fire rifles?
I know what I say the answer is. I’d like to see it clearly stated by someone with legal gravitas and then challenged in court.
[Via Jess]
“I’d like to see it clearly stated by someone with legal gravitas and then challenged in court.”
That would certainly put the fox in with the chickens.
The Left has based much of their approach to society’s ills on gun control, or whatever Luntz approved euphemism they’re using this week.
Yet I think a really good case could be made for an approach that would focus, really focus, on criminal control.
Nevertheless, that would be expecting one class of criminals * to do something to control another class of criminals. Probably not in my lifetime.
* (To the best of my knowledge, none of my relatives have ever had a shell corporation. The Biden’s have at least 20. Why?)
I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing here.
Their whole up front rationale for controlling access to guns, any guns, including post ’86 select fire weapons, is to somehow control crime. Doesn’t work. Hasn’t worked. Will probably never work.
If SCOTUS struck down the whole setup, from nfa34 or the bump stock executive order, what would the crime syndicate we know as the Democratic Party do next?
Or would they have to admit that it was never about controlling crime?
type
from nfa34 or the bump stock executive order
should be
from nfa34 to the bump stock executive order
my fingers can’t keep up with my brain or maybe vice versa.