Atf Comment On Heller Decision . . .

[CCWInstructor]

TF Acting Director ATF Michael J. Sullivan released the following statement on the recent Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia et. al. v. Heller: "ATF is pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations. The court's ruling is in accordance with the text of the Second Amendment, historical practice, and the Attorney General's 2001 guidance on the scope of the Second Amendment, and is consistent with the bureau's understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment. The Bureau also is pleased that the court appropriately made clear that nothing in [the] ruling casts doubt on the constitutionality of 'longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.' In addition, the court appropriately recognized that the 'carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,' such as machineguns, is not protected by the amendment. The bureau is studying the decision, but expects that it will not affect its continued enforcement of all existing federal firearms laws."

[Greg-Dawg®]

Great!....I think.

[tango-52]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

In addition, the court appropriately recognized that the 'carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,' such as machineguns, is not protected by the amendment.

Interesting. I didn't see that part of the ruling. Maybe ATF is wishing it was there.

[NSP]

The only problem I see is who is going to be the person deciding what weapons are dangerous or unusual?

Who is going to be the guy in an office somewhere deciding what machines designed to kill are more dangerous than others...

Or unusual. I could see them banning bullpup rifles or auto revolvers, or any gun that fires a hard to find "unusual" round.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by NSP

The only problem I see is who is going to be the person deciding what weapons are dangerous or unusual?

Who is going to be the guy in an office somewhere deciding what machines designed to kill are more dangerous than others...

Or unusual. I could see them banning bullpup rifles or auto revolvers, or any gun that fires a hard to find "unusual" round.

The Court has already said it.

"Dangerous and unusual" in the context of Heller is to dissuade fears about NFA items (machine guns) and other extraordinary weapons (Rocket Propelled Grenades and the such). It basically means Handguns, Rifles and Shotguns (in non-NFA formats) are protected.

[Bombard]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

The Court has already said it.

"Dangerous and unusual" in the context of Heller is to dissuade fears about NFA items (machine guns) and other extraordinary weapons (Rocket Propelled Grenades and the such). It basically means Handguns, Rifles and Shotguns (in non-NFA formats) are protected.

Would you see that ultimately voiding the CA "safe gun" restriction? Since we're banning a lot of handguns that are ordinary in the other 49 states?

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by Bombard

Would you see that ultimately voiding the CA "safe gun" restriction? Since we're banning a lot of handguns that are ordinary in the other 49 states?

No.... Not as its administered now... As long as the list contains a LOT of different handguns (giving the consumers choice) and the purpose for the law is to prevent "Dangerous" guns (guns that go bang accidentally) that thing aint going anywhere, because its a "reasonable regulation, narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest".... (aka it passes "Strict Scrutiny".)

If there are guns we want that arent on the list, we should take that up with the manufacturers.... They hold the keys to sale in California.