Joined:
Apr 2022
Posts:
215
EE: 0% (0)
USA
Posted: 9/7/2026 3:01:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Shackleford_R][Edited]
| the reasoning of the courts is totally circular. if a weapon is common, it can't be regulated. however, regulation causes a weapon to be uncommon, therefore justifying continued and even greater regulation. hand grenades are incredibly cheap to mass produce. for example: the RGD-5 hand grenade allegedly costs $5 to manufacture, at least according to valgear. if they were available on the civilian market, they would no doubt number in the millions. yet because they are totally unobtainable, they are uncommon, and therefore legal to restrict. now maybe some of you think that we shouldn't be able to own hand grenades, and that's another discussion. but i think it's quite clear that they are protected by the second amendment. not to mention the fact that "Common use" is totally arbitrary and has no bearing on the functionality of a weapon whatsoever. it's open to abuse in so many ways. these new standards we have to follow aren't all they're cracked up to be. i don't think they'll do much to change what exists on the market. |
|
It's irrelevant whether it makes sense, it's what lawyers have inserted into the discussion. Lawyers don't have to make sense, just arguments. First it was to get the desired result (upholding restrictions on SBSs in the Miller case), then in the Heller case making the rationale for a ban become the rationale for an unban. The Miller case was a terrible decision but SCOTUS almost will never just discard a bad decision, instead they just make more and more complex arguments around it. As Justice Thomas has pointed out (IIRC) it's not an exclusive test, in that things can be protected that are not in common use, but it is exclusionary of bans in that something that is in common use cannot be banned/denied/infringed. So it's an easy legal argument that if something is in common use, that really nothing else should have to be proven. If the lawyers are consistent that is, which is never a guarantee. |
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
|
Originally Posted By Shackleford_R: the reasoning of the courts is totally circular. if a weapon is common, it can't be regulated. however, regulation causes a weapon to be uncommon, therefore justifying continued and even greater regulation. hand grenades are incredibly cheap to mass produce. for example: the RGD-5 hand grenade allegedly costs $5 to manufacture, at least according to valgear. if they were available on the civilian market, they would no doubt number in the millions. yet because they are totally unobtainable, they are uncommon, and therefore legal to restrict. now maybe some of you think that we shouldn't be able to own hand grenades, and that's another discussion. but i think it's quite clear that they are protected by the second amendment. not to mention the fact that "Common use" is totally arbitrary and has no bearing on the functionality of a weapon whatsoever. it's open to abuse in so many ways. these new standards we have to follow aren't all they're cracked up to be. i don't think they'll do much to change what exists on the market. Read the DOJ brief to the supreme court. Makes it easier to understand. Full disclosure, i am a hatd core shall not be infringed believer……. |
I am the 53%
