Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
I'm a bit confused by the "unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices" charge. Either the device is illegal or it's not. A charge for "loading a feeding device above lawful limits" might make more sense.
|
Although I agree that it sounds odd, if one examines the wording of the law, IMHO the charge is technically correct. From the definitions...
Quote:
"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, that (a) has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition, or (b) contains more than seven rounds of ammunition...
|
(
emphasis mine)
IOW the mere fact that a magazine contains more than 7rds makes it a LCAFD. It's goofy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
That said, prior to Emerson, we had a long history of poorly-mounted 2A defenses on the part of very unsympathetic plaintiffs.
|
Just as a footnote, the
U.S. v. Miller case was arguably a textbook example of this.