-----Original Message----- >From: Jon Roland <[email protected]> >Sent: Jun 7, 2009 11:06 PM >To: "Daniel D. Todd" <[email protected]> >Cc: Firearms Reg <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban > >The only standard for being too "dangerous and unusual" would be >excessive risk to the user or bystanders against whom it is not >directed.
I think Prof. Lund takes the dangerous and unusual test apart (notwithstanding which we will likely to stuck with it for the foreseeable future). My friend John Frazer points out that the British sources cited for that proposition all dealt with *carrying,* not with keeping, weapons of that type. The view seems to have been that could could have all the weird nasty-looking weapons you wanted, just don't take them to church and scare people. I suspect that the test was a hypothetical outer limit. We know from Sir John Knight's case that packing pistols to church wasn't an offense unless there was specific intent to terrify. Hard to see what, in the last 17th century, would have been dangerous and unusual and terrifying. Blunderbusses? All over the place. Swords? What gentleman would be see without one? Daggers, halberds, javelins, bills, pikes ... doesn't everyone have some? Sounds more like "just in case anyone ever does invent something meeting this description, you have to leave it at home" _______________________________________________ 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.
