Nebraska considering ban on nonhunting guns
Or unduly dangerous guns. Or maybe military-looking guns. Anyway, whatever guns an appointed commission doesn't like. It actually has made it out of committee.
The sponsor's statements talk about "inherently dangerous" -- which any gun safety instructor will tell you, either includes all guns (if mishandled) or no guns, in good repair (if properly handled). And about focusing on "military-style" firearms, which "have no purpose for hunting."
Then the criteria (the standard pistol grip, etc.) have little to do with being inherently dangerous or not useful for hunting.
This must be an extreme case of the "losers getting revenge" phenomenon where those who were against concealed carry and saw it passed over their objection then come up with as many silly restrictions as possible in an effort to get even.
In New Mexico they made it a fourth class felony to carry a gun inte any establishment that serves liquor by the drink, and made it illegal to carry a back up gun anywhere. NM Permit allows carrying of one gun only.
Posted by: Flash Gordon at February 21, 2008 10:03 PM
A felony for carrying your gun into a restaurant? Wtf?
Posted by: Jim W at February 21, 2008 11:07 PM
This sort of thinking is why I am concerned about the language used in the respondent's brief in Heller. I understand the reasoning for not wanting the argument poisoned by the bugaboo of machineguns. But Gura, et. al. took the language of Miller
"any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. [emphasis mine]and replaced that "or" with "and", and then made the remainder of the argument about what "arms" are covered based on the "and" definition. For example:
Arms that may have great military utility but which are inappropriate for civilian purposes are still sensibly excluded from the Second Amendment’s protection, as civilians would not commonly use them.So my question then is, who decides what is "inappropriate" for civilian purposes? If the court adopts the language of the respondent's brief, does that set a precedent which can easily be used to argue that bans such as this are okay?
Posted by: jed at February 22, 2008 10:01 AM
Oh this is lovely. A commission of "appointees" gets to fine tune my level of freedom.
All the laws in place already work so well why do they want more laws. Either they work (so they don't need any more) or they don't work (so why keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result?)
Posted by: The Mechanic at February 22, 2008 11:30 AM
If any state can appoint a "commission" which has the power to negate personal rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, then that State has negated the Constitution and thereby effectively seceded from the Union.
The first Federal step should be to cut off every Federal dime going to Nebraska.
When all those Nebraskans getting rich off of Federal farm subsidies of various kinds, and all those po' folks receiving all those Federal Food Stamps get cut off because their State has seceded rise up in indignation, well, just put it this way, you wouldn't want to be an Arms Commissioner.
Posted by: Rivrdog at February 22, 2008 12:41 PM
It looks like they're gonna try to do the whole California AW thing again - 'bad guns' listed by name, etc.
We've had good luck in eviscerating parts of CAs AW ban (and the Calif DOJ Bureau of Firearms has been especially helpful with its flip-flop incompetence, differential enforcement of various lists of guns, etc.)
I expect even more success with Calif's AW ban in the future :)
San Jose, CA
Posted by: Bill Wiese at February 22, 2008 02:07 PM
"Eez gon! Eez not safe! Eez end of Safety Lecture!", as the old Russian guy had it, in the story.
You can be killed really good and dead with a matchlock.
Posted by: Justthisguy at February 23, 2008 10:54 PM
Arms that may have great military utility but which are inappropriate for civilian purposes are still sensibly excluded from the Second Amendment’s protection, as civilians would not commonly use them.
So. military weapons may be banned as being inappropriate for civilian purposes, and civilian guns may be banned as having no military utility.
Can we call this "Brady's Fork"? You cannot escape. Either way, you get caught on one tine or the other.
Posted by: Windy Wilson at February 28, 2008 01:25 PM