Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Young cited a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that found that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like” are not protected under the Second Amendment and “may be banned.”
|
Young's legal "reasoning" is laughable and is just an example of a leftist statist authoritarian grasping a straws.
Heller's statement that "
if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, . . . " isn't comparing appearances, accessories or furniture, it is comparing the full-auto M-16 to other guns that fall under Title II of NFA-34.
The single characteristic that those guns share, making them both "bannable" and thus "like" each other, is the ability
to fire more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger.
That's it, full stop . . .
Collapsible stocks, pistol grips, removable magazines, barrel shrouds or flash hiders are
NOT mentioned in NFA-34;
NONE of those things are of any interest to ATF in determining what differentiates a Title II "banned" gun from a "legal" gun.
This Massachusetts district opinion is just an example of what is to be expected from liberal judges -- lie, cheat and misrepresent and in the end, violate their oaths to the Constitution and dishonor their office.
.