- Messages
- 3,053
- Reactions
- 1,934
As one who DID go to law school I can tell you that Miller does not need to be reversed or modified in any way to defeat the CA appeals court decision. They are simply mistaken. They cite the M16 as being prohibited under Miller. We need not argue with that at all. An M16 is capable of full auto fire, and that's why it is unprotected under Miller. But the CA court goes on to confuse civilian semi-auto ONLY rifles with M16s, presumably because they look the same, or out of simple ignorance of the differences. The CA court is simply mistaken. It is an error in fact. Presumably the next court up the line would be more informed (or could be) by the defense attorney as to the very real functional differences between an M15 and M16, and the lack of differences between an M15 and other non-banned semi-autos. This is simply a huge (willful?) mistake by the CA court. It needs to be corrected.
There in lies the entire core problem with the term "Assault Weapon" to begin with. Did the Ak variant he own have select fire capability? No? Then why is this even an issue?
I seriously don't understand how lefties can say P-O-R-N is a 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression but we can regulate and make "evil looking guns" plain illegal just for having a few features that resemble an actual AR/AK.
Does a pistol grip, *hi-cap mag, collapsible stock, flash supressor, bayonet lug or detachable magazine make the "tactical" Mini-14 any better than the other rifle? Any more accurate? Fire faster? NOPE! It's just EVIL LOOKING.
*By the way, I was recently educated on not calling 20/30rnd mags hi-caps. It implies that a standard magazine is less than 30rnds...if anything, a 10rnd mag is a "low-cap" while a 100rnd drum would be considered "high-cap".