I find the following part the most interesting:
"...the three main points as presented in the SCOTUS per curiam decision:
(1) The Massachusetts Court held that stun guns were not protected by the 2A because stun guns “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment”. The Supreme Court rejected this as a direct affront to the landmark Heller decision, which explicitly holds that the 2A “extends…to…arms…that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
Did the SCOTUS just open the door for lawsuits on the unconstitutionality of the NFA, 1968 Gun Control Act , and the Hughes Amendment? After all none of the weapons banned by those violations of the 2nd Amendment were in existence when it was written, either.
"...the three main points as presented in the SCOTUS per curiam decision:
(1) The Massachusetts Court held that stun guns were not protected by the 2A because stun guns “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment”. The Supreme Court rejected this as a direct affront to the landmark Heller decision,
which explicitly holds that the 2A “extends…to…arms…that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
Did the SCOTUS just open the door for lawsuits on the unconstitutionality of the NFA, 1968 Gun Control Act , and the Hughes Amendment? After all none of the weapons banned by those violations of the 2nd Amendment were in existence when it was written, either.
Board
Search
Member List
Calendar
Red Dot Arms
Help
