BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ILLINOIS, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, HAWAII, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND REVERSAL [More]They don't seem very friendly to me...
[Via bondmen]
Ah, the old argument that the regulation is not a "complete ban" and so it should be allowed. And the one that "these other states are doing it" and therefore so should California.
ReplyDeleteNever mind that it fails at its stated purpose of reducing violent crime and "gun violence".
Never mind that it unnecessarily burdens peaceable citizens.
Under this logic, California could pass a law saying you can purchase 20 rounds per month (not 20 rounds per caliber you own -- 20 rounds, and no matter that most pistol calibers are sold in boxes of 50 and not 20, and therefore couldn't be sold legally), and because it's not a "complete ban", it's Constitutionally allowed. They could limit it to 20 rounds per year -- "more than enough for hunting deer ... unless you suck at hunting!" -- and it's still not a "complete ban".
And if I recall correctly, the same "not a complete ban" argument was rejected by SCOTUS in both Heller and MacDonald. Yet, here it is again.