NYC and StunGuns: maybe caetano ban was ok, if you use different “reason”

[delaware_export]

That’s their NEW read on caetano… and they’re pushing it up the court chain.

other posts on the fpc feed citing the nyc/stunner brief argue .. they’re not common, they’re deadly, not firearms, and designed for the military…. Check out the briefs and posts. Again, the fpc twit feed had cited highlights.

Also funny, as in Fd up, how fast .gov moves a case when it’s theirs. And young damned bear died before his 2012?2013??? Case got resolved….

 

[press1280]

They obviously don't care about wasting taxpayer dollars for a case they will lose at some point. I'm pretty sure even the district court probably won't go along with it since no other court has post-Caetano.
Now they are technically correct that Caetano didn't outright strike the ban down, problem though is every other court read between the lines that they would have if the case got back to them. Also, remember Caetano was decided when we had a 4-4 split (Scalia had just passed). Now we have a 6-3 split with Bruen.

 

[Allen65]

They obviously don't care about wasting taxpayer dollars for a case they will lose at some point. I'm pretty sure even the district court probably won't go along with it since no other court has post-Caetano.
Now they are technically correct that Caetano didn't outright strike the ban down, problem though is every other court read between the lines that they would have if the case got back to them. Also, remember Caetano was decided when we had a 4-4 split (Scalia had just passed). Now we have a 6-3 split with Bruen.

Don't judges sanction attorneys for making frivolous arguments? NY's sure seem frivolous to me.