Not to make too much of the obvious, but shouldn't the government have the burden to show the firearm proposed for banning is being used in destructive ways in the US and these ways are significantly more so than other firearms? Or, at least, show that this firearm has the potential for being so used? And, additionally, that no less intrusive method exists to mitigate sufficiently the harm/potential harm.
Too much is being made of "common use" as a criteria for a particular firearm. The SC said that handgun couldn't be banned, since they were in common use -- they didn't imply that .28 caliber pistol being introduced by S&W could be banned because this particular firearm was not in common use -- that interpretation would stand the Second Amendment on its head. Phil > > if you take this to the next level a "common use" law could preclude > the introduction of any new cartridge or even any new weapon using an > existing cartridge. > > This > is why it is necessary for those knowledgeable about "arms" to develop > an acceptable taxonomy to help the courts in determining what is in > "common use" I would argue that a semi-automatic rifle with a .50 bore > is a "common weapon" and there is no reason for this to be considered > an exceptional weapon. I feel strongly that a strict test of > "exceptionalness" needs to be applied for restricting a > constitutionally enumerated right rather than a "common use" test as > outlined in Heller. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: C. D. Tavares <[email protected]> > > On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Raymond Kessler wrote: > > > Further, Heller seems to be limited to "weapons in common > > use." .50 cal. Rifles are not in common use. > > I > wonder why I don't see more discussion of the elephant in this > particular room -- viz., Miller requires "common use" to protect a type > of firearm, but many firearms not in "common use" are rare precisely > due to pre-Miller laws that are at variance with the underlying logic > of Miller. Seems to me that a ruling that "we will protect your right > to own popular guns" isn't much different from a ruling that "we will > protect your right to utter popular speech." > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [email protected] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
