Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
Turn that around and lets say they find in Duncan ( mag restrictions ) that you don't have the right to have a mag that holds more then 10rds . OK so ... that does nothing to clear up if "assault" weapons can be banned or not . Why does the court have everything riding on Duncan ?
|
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). So once they've settled Duncan it will save a lot of time in Rupp and Miller. There's no point in arguing similar cases at the same time.
In other words once the Ninth has spewed out some convoluted logic to explain how "in common use for lawful purposes" doesn't mean what it says, they won't have to do it again for Rupp and Miller.