More on unusual
Sebastian looks at my questions: I’ve also advocated that the courts should consider police use when making a determination about “common use.”
3 Responses to “More on unusual”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:28 pm
An even better method is, common use means a company sells it, or wants to sell it, for a profit to the public.
That way, new technology is not subject to being banned in advance based on a prototype.
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:57 pm
I don’t see how either “in common use” or “dangerous and unusual” negate “shall not be infringed.”
TS
January 24th, 2013 at 10:47 am
Well, considering the number of Firearms sold over the past year, and the M4 Semi-Autos in particular, if the standard is “In Common Use,” I could make a case that,if anything should be Banned, they should START with Trapdoor Springfields, thus leaving the M4s and Glocks to the Tail End.
But none of it matters, since the Anti-Gunners just want ALL Guns Banned anyway.