I am not a lawyer.
But I love seeing what else can be done with the opinion we got.
I found many many many interesting bits within it that might support opening gun rights in other areas, particularly the NFA stuff.
1. Short barrelled rifles
If the standard is "weapons...[that are] port of the ordinary military equipment", why not the standard M-4?
Hmmmmm.
In addition, although the opinion talks about what weapons *are* considered dangerous and unusual, I'm pretty sure they never once say short barreled rifles are in that camp.
Hmmmm.
And since we have seen quite an expansion of late with regard to NFA items, I wonder if once could correctly conclude that SBRs are nowadays "usual" weapons.
Hmmmmm.
2. Machine guns.
Although the opinion incorrectly states that all machine guns were banned in 1934, and continues to go back to them as THE example "dangerous and unusual" weapons, there is this other part of the opinion that talks to the "unusualness":
Machine guns are unusual *because* they were "banned", but were usual up to that point. The same might be true of short-barreled shotguns, but whatever.....
Even more interestingly, if one were to correct this to say that they were usual up to 1934, and slightly less usual until 1986, at which point they were banned, and GEE WHIZ look at how many machine guns exist despite these restrictions.
And the really beautiful part is that (supposedly) the ATF knows *exactly* how many exist, what with the registry and tax stamp records and whatnot.
At that point, you may no longer be able to state that they are "unusual", despite the fact that the court relies upon them as being "unusual".
Hmmmm.
(I bet those Hollis v. Holder people are already mulling this over....)
3. Suppressors/Silencers/Sound muffling devices.
This part is interesting.
-They are not mentioned at all in the opinion, despite being 1934 NFA items.
-They are becoming normal military equipment. (see part above about SBRs)
-They are becoming quite "usual" given the explosion of NFA trusts over the last few years, with exact numbers presumably at the ATFs fingertips.
-They cannot be dangerous by themselves.
-BUT....they are not core to the 2nd Amendment (I don't think) because they are not required for the weapon to operate, unlike other parts such as ammo, magazines and firing pins, as the opinion points out.
Regardless, I think there may be some fruit on this vine for whatever lawsuits are out there today regarding suppressors. (I don't think there are any. Shame that.)
And now.... everybody tell me I'm full of crap.
But do so constructively..
-M
But I love seeing what else can be done with the opinion we got.
I found many many many interesting bits within it that might support opening gun rights in other areas, particularly the NFA stuff.
1. Short barrelled rifles
Interesting....the Military standard version of the M-4 uses a 14.5" barrel.
If the standard is "weapons...[that are] port of the ordinary military equipment", why not the standard M-4?
Hmmmmm.
In addition, although the opinion talks about what weapons *are* considered dangerous and unusual, I'm pretty sure they never once say short barreled rifles are in that camp.
Hmmmm.
And since we have seen quite an expansion of late with regard to NFA items, I wonder if once could correctly conclude that SBRs are nowadays "usual" weapons.
Hmmmmm.
2. Machine guns.
Although the opinion incorrectly states that all machine guns were banned in 1934, and continues to go back to them as THE example "dangerous and unusual" weapons, there is this other part of the opinion that talks to the "unusualness":
Interesting bit....
Machine guns are unusual *because* they were "banned", but were usual up to that point. The same might be true of short-barreled shotguns, but whatever.....
Even more interestingly, if one were to correct this to say that they were usual up to 1934, and slightly less usual until 1986, at which point they were banned, and GEE WHIZ look at how many machine guns exist despite these restrictions.
And the really beautiful part is that (supposedly) the ATF knows *exactly* how many exist, what with the registry and tax stamp records and whatnot.
At that point, you may no longer be able to state that they are "unusual", despite the fact that the court relies upon them as being "unusual".
Hmmmm.
(I bet those Hollis v. Holder people are already mulling this over....)
3. Suppressors/Silencers/Sound muffling devices.
This part is interesting.
-They are not mentioned at all in the opinion, despite being 1934 NFA items.
-They are becoming normal military equipment. (see part above about SBRs)
-They are becoming quite "usual" given the explosion of NFA trusts over the last few years, with exact numbers presumably at the ATFs fingertips.
-They cannot be dangerous by themselves.
-BUT....they are not core to the 2nd Amendment (I don't think) because they are not required for the weapon to operate, unlike other parts such as ammo, magazines and firing pins, as the opinion points out.
Regardless, I think there may be some fruit on this vine for whatever lawsuits are out there today regarding suppressors. (I don't think there are any. Shame that.)
And now.... everybody tell me I'm full of crap.
But do so constructively..
-M
