Quote:
|
Most of the arguments in Duncan are the same as the arguments in Miller (I haven't read Rupp, but I expect it's also true for it).
|
I wouldn't think so but after watching that en-banc in Duncan I'd have to say yes . Only because our lawyer made the argument more then once . That the magazine and the rest of the firearm are the same thing . You can't ban one without it effecting the other . I still don't think a mag capacity restriction is the same as a out right ban on a complete class of firearms . I just don't see how they get there but I'm sure they will . I read somewhere based on a dem vs Rep appointed judges "we" have a 4 to 7 disadvantage with the 11 judges that just heard the Duncan case
There was one analogy she made that I thought was good when talking about modifying the mag you have and how the government thinks as long as you still have the mag they didn't infringe on the right . She come back with something like " It's like having two houses and the government makes you tear down one . Why should you complain you still have one of the houses to live in "
What might have been better would have been saying Ok you have a 5 bedroom house and the government makes you seal off two bedrooms and one bath . You still have most of the house so why complain ?
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !
I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
