Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: vaskidmark on October 23, 2013, 10:43:17 AM
-
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2013/10/ca-court-appeal-holds-second-amendment-doesnt-protect-semi-autos/
From David Hardy's "Arms and the Law":
Decision here, in pdf. The court essentially seizes upon Heller language saying the right has some limits, and proclaims that semi-autos, or at least "assault rifles," are at least as "dangerous and unusual" as the short barreled shotgun involved in Miller.
The inclination of the court is obvious. The situation probably indicates how essential it is to "develop a record" at the trial level. What proportion of firearms are "assault weapons"? One of the answers is that over 20% of current rifle production is by manufacturers who make nothing but AR-platform rifles.
1 - I hope to heck that "assault rifles" (no, not the select-fire ones that actually describes but the "assault weapons" the gun laws refer to via cosmetic features) are at least as dangerous as Miller's sawed-off shotgun
2 - 20%+ remains "unusual"? Just how much of a portion of the total does it need to become un-unusual? And just how much money do they think we have what with the current recession and the threat of rising health care insurance premiums? Do they really expect me to give up buying milk and cereal for the kiddies so I can afford to buy enough AR/AK-platform semi-automatic rifles to make them "common"? (Well, I really don't have a problem with that as I have no kiddies, but some folks might and might also run into a "discussion" with the other adult in the family over that plan. If that happened theere would be even less money available due to the sudden need to pay alimony and child support.)
Seriously - do those justices really not think these things through?
stay safe.
-
Freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet. ;/
The founders never intended you to be able to shoot your mouth off to that many people at once.
-
It did hit one nail squarely on the head. "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service - M –16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause."
Ayep. Tis why Miller never made sense to me. Military weapons should be more protected than say, hunting firearms.
I suspect this will be overturned when it goes federal. CA Court of Appeal just made the process longer.
-
They sure jump through some logical fallacy hoops to get to that conclusion.
Miller says the 2A protects militia weapons those to be used by the people when called to war.
But Heller/McDonald said that only pistols kept in the home and only those in "common use" are covered by the 2A.
Therefore the rifle that has been produced more than any other type EVER in the history of the world is not a militia weapon in common use.
Makes perfect sense to me.