The Cargill case, as most know, did not argue the Bruen test in their defense of bunpstocks. Instead they focused on the ability of Feds to redefine the law to fit.
It seems that the ruling could go either way which at the time bothered me but I started thinking this morning that us “losing” this case might be a win.
If we lose this solely because the definitions found within the law they are NOT saying the law is constitutional as that wasn’t the question asked. Instead what the court has done is make “machine guns” recently in “common use for legal purposes” which takes away which takes away the history and tradition of government limiting “dangerous and unusual” firearms.
I’m no attorney, just a guy who works on public policy at a conservative think tank (so I have some knowledge of how courts and agencies think) which doesn’t specialize in 2A law (so I don’t have in house experts to ask) so I thought I would post this here to see if any of you who might be attorneys think.
It seems that the ruling could go either way which at the time bothered me but I started thinking this morning that us “losing” this case might be a win.
If we lose this solely because the definitions found within the law they are NOT saying the law is constitutional as that wasn’t the question asked. Instead what the court has done is make “machine guns” recently in “common use for legal purposes” which takes away which takes away the history and tradition of government limiting “dangerous and unusual” firearms.
I’m no attorney, just a guy who works on public policy at a conservative think tank (so I have some knowledge of how courts and agencies think) which doesn’t specialize in 2A law (so I don’t have in house experts to ask) so I thought I would post this here to see if any of you who might be attorneys think.