Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zeke
Will give ya a hint, and that is the simpler the better.
|
Conceptually, the simplest way to resolve the problems with this part of the NFA could be to void it.
The sources I see offered all put the number of braced pistols in the millions, with a low estimate of 3 million and a high estimate of 40 million.
Stun guns enjoy constitutional protection in part because they are in common use with "hundreds of thousands" having been sold.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Caetano, Alito and Thomas concurring in the judgment
The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States. People v. Yanna, 297 Mich. App. 137, 144, 824 N. W. 2d 241, 245 (2012) (holding Michigan stun gun ban unconstitutional); see Volokh, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199, 244 (2009) (citing stun gun bans in seven States); Wis. Stat. §941.295 (Supp. 2015) (amended Wisconsin law permitting stun gun possession); see also Brief in Opposition 11 (acknowledging that “approximately 200,000 civilians owned stun guns” as of 2009). While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.
|
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-10078
Caetano is distinguishable in that the issue presented was a ban, but it was the numerosity that lead to a conclusion that they were "in common use".
If Congress were not entitled to burden unduly the possession of either short barreled rifles (which can raise 922r compliance issues) or pistols with stocks so as to remove them from NFA regulation, the happy result would be to remove the compliance issues we've discussed, and prevent agency reclassification of pistols from triggering violations of state laws. (Yes, incorporation should solve the problem of state bans of non-NFA items in common use, but if you've an AR pistol because you live in a state that prohibits possession of NFA items, you might prefer not to have the fight rather than have it and be right.)
That sort of conceptually simple path may be frustrated by a doctrine that a challenge should be resolved on a narrower basis if that's available, judicial minimalism. Unfortunately, the 2d Am. is hardly the only possible basis for a challenge.