What he doesn’t touch on much is that the term “Assault Weapon” is 100% meaningless unless there is a specific law defining it. Currently unless you live in a place like Massachusetts that specifically regulates “Assault Weapons”, it means nothing, but can be passed around with impunity.
Be vigilant, they’re trying to run the same scam from 94 again, but we have the means to fight the misinformation now, but it will take work.
Has no-one pointed out that if semi-autos are made NFA items because they are “weapons of war”, that it contradicts the Miller case that affirmed the NFA?
Good starting point IMO for educating. Also shows the hypocritical nature of the Brady folks.
Yeah, but it is already contradicted with full-autos being NFA. You have no right to a sawed-off shotgun because it is not suitable for military purposes, and you have no right to a full-auto weapon because it “is* suitable for military purposes.
Good point. I still figure that it’s a good reference, though. More facts can’t hurt your argument.
Miller should be invalidated as precedent due to procedural considerations, anyway. Miller himself was dead, and his attorney wrote the Court and said “I’m not getting paid, so just go by my written brief,” so SCOTUS only heard oral arguments from the government, with no opportunity for rebuttal from the other side. Since Miller was dead, it should have just been dismissed as moot. Instead, the Court ruled in favour of the .gov.