Note that this says nothing whatsoever about what weapons may be KEPT as opposed to carried in public.

I say buy them off. Give each of them a big severence package, say “thanks” and send them packing. Auction off all department assets. It’s the least painful way to rid ourselves of an institution that should never have existed.

why are we waisting all this tax money on the electric chair and lethal injections… bring back hangings and firing squads…

they might indeed be cruel… but they arent cruel andunusual… in fact they are quite common…

5. The applicant takes his or her completed application to a licensed firearm dealer to take delivery of the pistol. If the dealer is outside the District, the dealer transports the pistol to a licensed dealer in the District to complete the transaction.

I wasn’t aware that DC had any licensed dealers besides Josh Sugarmann.

I don’t think the court specified that machineguns were what they meant when they referred to dangerous and unusual weapons.

Par for the course. Why should the ATF stop making up stuff now?

You know it occurs to me that any new technology could be banned if this dangerous or unusual meme sticks.

Exactly why we should _stop_ writing “dangerous or unusual”. That phrase occurs only once in the Heller opinion and even there it was only quoting from Miller where in Miller it was quoting from the government’s brief.

From Heller, at page 55:

We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.”

I think the “and” is very important as it requires the weapon to be _both_ dangerous _and_ unusual. I would also take “dangerous” to mean dangerous to the user or to mean indiscriminate in effect, e.g., a hand grenade. With this reading caseless ammo would be okay. Machine guns would also be okay — they may not be “common” but there is certainly nothing particularly “unusual” _or_ “dangerous” about them.

It would seem the “in common use at the time” phrasing is subject to attack also: the first amendment certainly protects more than just what was “in common use at the time”. I am not aware of any legitimate reason the same should not apply to the second — particularly when one considers the very purpose of the second.

Unusual means different or out of the ordinary. Would a weapon that fires caseless ammunition fit such a bill? They exist but are certainly unusual….