From the Slate article: "The state recognized that the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller protects citizens’ right to keep handguns in the home. But it argued that the firearms it had proscribed constituted “dangerous and unusual weapons,” which the Heller court said could be outlawed. Indeed, Maryland pointed out, the Heller court explicitly declares that especially dangerous weapons “that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned.”
What strikes me as bizzar is, it was not long ago that the focus on gun control was on handguns. Handguncontrol et al, argued that handguns were involved in most firearms murders, were easy to conceal, 2A only applied to rifles, etc, etc. Now, it's a 180 focus being they lost that battle and now "only want to rid us of those evil black rifles made for war" and all that. The irony of that 180 should not be lost. Aaron Clements wrote: > This isn't the first case to so hold. Judge Easterbrook's opinion in > Highland Park from the 7th Circuit did likewise, though Easterbrook went > to great lengths to apply tests that violate explicit language of both > Heller and McDonald ... and the SCOTUS refused to grant cert, resulting > in Thomas's dissent opining that the 7th had "relegat[ed] the Second > Amendment to a second-class right." > > > Truly, I don't know what the suit proponents expected by bringing suit at > the present time in a circuit composed of ten Democrats and five > Republicans (by original appointing President). One of the four Clinton > appointees abandoned the ideological ship and authored the dissent joined > by three Bush '41/'43 appointees; the lone remaining Reagan appointee > balanced that out by joining the other three Clinton and six Obama > appointees. > > > From: Henry Schaffer <[email protected]> > To: firearmsregprof <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:42 PM > Subject: banning "assault weapons" > > > http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf > > > (haven't read this 116 page item yet) > > > An article which called my attention to this opinion - and which loves > it: > > > http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/21/appeals_court_holds_sec > ond_amendment_doesn_t_protect_assault_weapons.html > > --henry schaffer > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- Sincerely, Author and industry consultant, Will Brink @ www.BrinkZone.com Free articles, free ebook, and other stuff of interest to fitness enthusiasts, see my site at: http://www.brinkzone.com/ Remember, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -- Einstein _______________________________________________ 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.
