Quote:
|
“[p]istol grips on assault rifles ... help stabilize the weapon during rapid fire and allow the shooter to spray-fire from the hip position"
|
Even if this preposterous and erroneous notion were true, it would serve only to make a weapon more functional. There's nothing in the law about spraying from the hip for lawful purposes. It's clearly tired, worn out hyperbole intended to illicit an emotional reaction.
Again, even if this statement were true, it rests on the false argument that small arms in common use can be too functional to be protected by the second amendment.
It is simply not possible for a weapon to be too purposely functional for resisting a vicious criminal attack, unless it has performance characteristics that unnecessarily endanger innocent bystanders.
A pistol grip, full capacity magazine, laser sight, night sight, night-vision, bipod, or any other feature or accessory that makes accurate, and/or sustained fire more controllable, or more possible is absolutely protected, IMO.
Weapons not only are allowed to be functional, functionality is a central component of 2A protection per Heller.
By the way, what type of firearm would be more appropriate for the purpose of resisting future tyranny, than a civilian version of the one firearm that is placed in the hands of nearly every 18 year old who signs on the dotted line for the armed services?
If there is an anti-tyranny contingency contained in the second amendment at all, then a semi-auto AR-15 ought to be the MOST protected small arm in the land.