Kolbe v O'Malley being Appealed to CA4

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    frogman68

    frogman68

    товарищ плачевная
    Apr 7, 2013
    8,774
    Maybe they are waiting for Roberts to appoint a judge to finally decide
     
    J

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Dogmeat said:
    OK, so I have been back from my Two Week vacation for Two Weeks.

    When are their Two Weeks up? :rolleyes:
    Click to expand...

    You are failing to account for time dilation effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

    For example you two week vacation probably felt much shorter than the actual amount of time. This is time dilation.

    They teach judges how to act really really fast in judge school. The practical effects of this is that everyone perceives this as acting much slower than they actually are moving. The faster they move the longer it appears to take. These judges appear to be moving extra fast with case. You will know when the two weeks are up when they issue the ruling.
     
    V

    vgplayer

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 17, 2013
    1,069
    King George, VA
    The whole common use argument doesn't make any sense to me as a valid argument. Say a new design comes out and it is being considered if it is protected. Since it is new it can't be in common use therefore their logic is it is not protected. Since no civilian can get it, it can never become in common use.
    How about they look at what the military uses and declare that common use and get rid of the whole NFA.
     
    EL1227

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    vgplayer said:
    The whole common use argument doesn't make any sense to me as a valid argument. Say a new design comes out and it is being considered if it is protected. Since it is new it can't be in common use therefore their logic is it is not protected. Since no civilian can get it, it can never become in common use.
    How about they look at what the military uses and declare that common use and get rid of the whole NFA.
    Click to expand...

    Common use as defined in FSA2013 .... AR15 and 'copy-cats'. You can't get any more 'common' than that. Data shows just over 2M AR15s produced for domestic sale by manufacturers from 2000 to 2010 alone, so there are probably 3 times that by now.
     
    V

    vgplayer

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 17, 2013
    1,069
    King George, VA
    EL1227 said:
    Common use as defined in FSA2013 .... AR15 and 'copy-cats'. You can't get any more 'common' than that. Data shows just over 2M AR15s produced for domestic sale by manufacturers from 2000 to 2010 alone, so there are probably 3 times that by now.
    Click to expand...

    I meant common use as applied by the courts to restrict the second amendment.
    Lets say the courts decide that under Heller common use means civilians own 2 million. Therefore anything less than 2 million could be restricted which would mean no more advancements in firearm technology for civilians since they will be restricted as they aren't in common use.
     
    J

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    6-Pack said:
    Just an FYI for those who want to read an article from the recent Maryland Bar Journal:

    http://www.msba.org/Bar_Bulletin/2015/09_-_September/MBJ_September_Feature.aspx
    Click to expand...

    vgplayer said:
    The whole common use argument doesn't make any sense to me as a valid argument. Say a new design comes out and it is being considered if it is protected. Since it is new it can't be in common use therefore their logic is it is not protected. Since no civilian can get it, it can never become in common use.
    How about they look at what the military uses and declare that common use and get rid of the whole NFA.
    Click to expand...

    This is because the courts still don't understand common use. They try to use a numbers based argument and come up with circular logic.

    I believe that it is based on lawful uses. Back when the amendment was created concealed carry and weapons that conceal themselves as other objects were considered dangerous and unusual. This was because only criminals carried concealed. A persons honor at the time dictated that they open carry. This honor can be seen in the duels that occurred between two people, such as the one between Arron Burr and Alexander Hamilton (Hamilton called Burr names). Things have changed since then and concealed carry is considered common use. The fact that things have changed is what is confusing the court because they cannot rely on precedent.

    In this case the 3d weapon would likely be considered common use because they are typically used like other firearms are typically used. Additionally the lawyer does not seem to understand that the personal manufacture of firearms has very little restrictions. The sale and possession of said weapons do have numerous restrictions.

    Most of the NFA does not prevent common use however. The only portion that prevents common use is the Hughes amendment which restricts additional registrations. This effectively bans new registrations.
     
    Schipperke

    Schipperke

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    18,759
    vgplayer said:
    The whole common use argument doesn't make any sense to me as a valid argument. Say a new design comes out and it is being considered if it is protected. Since it is new it can't be in common use therefore their logic is it is not protected. Since no civilian can get it, it can never become in common use.
    How about they look at what the military uses and declare that common use and get rid of the whole NFA.
    Click to expand...

    I've thought the same as well. The entire premise is so F'd , in addition the lower court considered the AR-15 not common use ? :sad20:
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    AGC Range

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,497
    Messages
    7,284,064
    Members
    33,471
    Latest member
    Ababe1120

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom