MaverickNH
NES Member
I wonder - just as it’s taken decades for anti-gun states to come up with “comprehensive” AWB definitions by feature(s), brands/models, function(s), might crafty legislatures simply dial back on the comprehensiveness to moot a case? Like, take a small unpopular set of firearms off the named list, or take thumbhole stocks back off the evil features list? It seems they could keep this going a long time…
SCOTUS might be on board with “shall not be infringed” but is certainly not “shall not be made tedious and inconvenient.”
SCOTUS might be on board with “shall not be infringed” but is certainly not “shall not be made tedious and inconvenient.”