Now, since I'm a firearms absolutist, I had to agree with most every point made. But the most logical thing I've seen in a long time is something said by commenter ctdonath:
The problem with “in common use” is what frequency constitutes “common”, and what the boundaries of the category in question are.
AR15s are, without question, “common”. There are many millions of them around. Arguable that no other single design is more “common”.
That's the teaser ... he starts making epic sense right after that (RTWT).
Now, the absolutist in me says that there's no reason for any of these 'tools' to be illegal. And if you can get an anti-gunner to stipulate that there's no way to prevent a criminal from getting what he wants, firearms-wise, then all the other arguments are just circular.
Just like the 'in common use' argument - how can it be in common use if the government restricts it?
Alan & Company at Snarkybytes explore related thought about the McDonald decision, as it relates to the NFA. Alan posits that since the NFA is a tax on firearms, and you cannot tax an enumerated right, the NFA is null and void. Newbius chimes in that since the GCA '68 is written on top of the NFA (and FOPA '86 is written on top of GCA), then the whole house of cards comes down.
So here's my absolutist question. If all of these laws have such tenuous constiutionality, why are Alan Gura and the SAF not soliciting a case to test this? Miller has been misquoted to death, and works in our favor (military weapons); why not bring that up? Why not test the NFA once again?
I'll volunteer to attempt to purchase a post-86 machine gun (with short barrel and suppressor!). When I'm denied, we can start the ball rolling.
What do you say, Mr Gura?!
pm
No comments:
Post a Comment