Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by jgullock, Dec 18, 2018.
Well that can't be right - I don't remember any stories of the Colonists holding off hordes of Redcoats with nunchucks...
Chen concluded that nunchucks are commonly used by law-abiding citizens — for example, by karate enthusiasts, or for self-defense — so therefore banning them outright runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
. . .
Sotomayor’s panel ruling against Maloney had cost her the support of the National Rifle Association.
. . .
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) began by asking, “Doesn’t your decision in [Maloney v. Cuomo] mean that virtually any state or local weapons ban would be permissible?”
“Sir, in Maloney, we were talking about nunchuck sticks,” she responded, eliciting muffled laughs from the room. She then explained to Hatch how exactly nunchucks are used: “When the sticks are swung, which is what you do with them, if there’s anybody near you, you’re going to be seriously injured, because that swinging mechanism can break arms. It can bust someone’s skull.”
Hatch backed off. Conan O’Brien later turned the moment into a comedy sketch.https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...endment/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3061b024ba27
Link to the actual court's opinion released four days ago:
It turns out Maloney is an attorney and represented himself.
Seems the court used only intermediate scrutiny, told the prosecution how to void his decision and left the door wide open for a revised ban and additional argument to reinstate the ban.
I like how the court indicated that evidence of the popularity of nunchucks would have to be evaluated in light of the fact that all of New York State has banned them for 40+ years. So such weapons would likely be even MORE POPULAR ("in common use") if not for government restrictions.
State says: "But there's an exception in the Second Amendment for dangerous things. People can get HURT with chuka sticks!"
Court says: "Yeah, right. Like firearms aren't dangerous. Are you gonna argue guns don't come within the scope of the 2A?
And don't we want dangerous weapons to defend ourselves with?"
A requirement of empirical evidence? We just saw that rejected in another case, which instead said the government can offer fearful speculation.
We'll be left with Nerf guns
until somebody gets an eye injury.
Preventing eye injury is a compelling government interest.
Nunchaku (an actual weapon) are ok, but "large" capacity (more than 10 rounds) magazines (not a weapon) and bump stocks (also not a weapon) are not ok.
Except for assault nunchuks
Maloney is an old classmate of my wife's. He's been working on this one for a long time. Glad to see he got what he was looking for.
ETA: I was corrected last night by my beloved bride; Mr. Maloney was her Admiralty Law professor. They are still in touch .
15 years of the lawsuit. 18 years since his arrest.
Persistence pays off! Except for our military in Afghanistan.
Fixed it for you.
Its nice, but i would love to see mag bans, "good cause" for a permit and 'assault' weapons bans held inconstitutional.