Al, I think the term "in common use" is pretty self-explanatory to the layman. There may of course be legal definitions that arise from court cases but to me 118,000 out of 200 million calculates to not in common use.
The crux of the maestro pistolero's circular argument that I see is that for it to be true then FA weapons had to be in common use pre 1934. I don't thnk they were and so civilian rejection of them as a viable firearm for their use made the NFA possible to pass without objection except for Mr. Miller who was a criminal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Antipitas
No one, not you, not the Government, can say with any credibility that NFA firearms are not in common use, because the argument was foreclosed in 1934.
|
And neither can you say they were. I think peripheral facts would lead us to believe they were not since records were not kept. For instance, the Auto-Ordnance Corporation (as Yellowfin notes) marketed them to ranchers for pest control
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kingpowercinema/35177769/
The effort failed and the company was sold at Thompson's death. They were designed for military use, expensive and wasteful of ammo for civilian use. No good for hunting and overkill for civilian self defense. Auto-Ordinance's attempt to sell them on the civilian market was clearly a failure and I think that speaks to the "in common use"
But Yellowfin makes the case for me in his post above that they were never in common use because they were unsuitable (price, weight etc) for common civilian lawful use.
Now, if the registry you speak of were opened would these Full Auto weapons be owned by lots of folks? Maybe, but we don't know that anymore than we know they would buy rocket launchers if they were available.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Antipitas
In common use? You just can't argue one way or another.
|
Well sure you can argue
but if FA had been in common use in 1934 as say the double barrelled shotgun, I expect the NFA not have passed. As I have aruged in the past FA has no suitability for civilian use and restricting ownership is not unconstitutional under
Heller or current law.