Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raimius
"Arms" In application, I believe it protects small arms most rigidly.
|
Interesting. Hasn't the court ruled that arms means firearms? I don't think it protects "plasma rifles" but then I wouldn't what the heck those are anyway.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd
The NFA did in fact hinder ownership of full auto firearms.
|
I still don't see that you have produced any evidence that the NFA caused those arms to not be in common use. You are speculating and I think it just as plausible that people didn't purchase them normally (except hobbyists and collectors) because they had no suitable purpose for them.
In order for your circular argument to work you would have to show (as did Gura with the handgun argument) that FA was in common use either before the NFA or the "86 FOPA and I don't think you or anyone else have done that. In fact the evidence shows otherwise. Imagine if the NFA had banned or restricted hunting rifles or normal length shotguns? It never would have passed.
The court routinely uses criteria to ascertain whether based on facts presented a law or rule violates the COTUS. Since the issue at hand is 2A (and not free speech, press etc) the criteria of "firearms in common use" today (not in 1789) is useful and since the NFA does not ban machineguns totally for private ownership you will be unlikely to win the agrument on legal constitutional gorunds simply because they cost a lot today.