Anti gun interpretation of State v Fennell
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Shotgun
One part jumped out at me:
>This reasoning stands in stark opposition to Fennell's holding that the legislature may ban an especially dangerous type of shotgun in the interest of public safety even though it could not ban all shotguns.<
************
I've never really understood how it is that a shotgun with a 17-inch barrel could be more dangerous than one with an 18 inch barrel...or even a 26-inch barrel. If the restriction is there because of the ability to more readily conceal a shotgun with a 6-inch barrel and a pistol-grip stock...maybe that makes a *little* more sense...maybe.
Is it because, after sawing the barrel off, it tends to disperse the shot charge wider? Well...Sawing a 26-inch barrel off to 24 inches would accomplish the sasme thing, since the choke in most shotguns is in the
first inch or two behind the muzzle...so that can't be it.
Must be the concealable factor. About as concealable as a Ruger Super Redhawk...
Or is it because the term "Sawed-Off Shotgun" simply strikes terror in the hearts of the sheep in the same way that "Cop Killer Bullets" and Saturday Night Specials do? Does it conjure up images of Roaring Twenties gangsters operating under the orders of Al Capone and Shootouts at the OK Corral? Folklore and legend outlawed the quaint little artifacts other wise known as "Switchblades"...which for the most part aren't really suited for fighting or for utility. I always thought the "West Side Story" type stillettos were elegant and beautiful...but face it...They're pretty poor knives as knives go.
So...Someone please explain to me...without the bleating and wailing and gnashing of teeth...why a sawed-off shotgun is so much more evil and dangerous than its longer-tubed, socially acceptable sporting cousin?
They're both pretty nasty if you're on the wrong end, and I seriously doubt if it would make a lot of difference for those who happen to be so unfortunate.
One part jumped out at me:
>This reasoning stands in stark opposition to Fennell's holding that the legislature may ban an especially dangerous type of shotgun in the interest of public safety even though it could not ban all shotguns.<
************
I've never really understood how it is that a shotgun with a 17-inch barrel could be more dangerous than one with an 18 inch barrel...or even a 26-inch barrel. If the restriction is there because of the ability to more readily conceal a shotgun with a 6-inch barrel and a pistol-grip stock...maybe that makes a *little* more sense...maybe.
Is it because, after sawing the barrel off, it tends to disperse the shot charge wider? Well...Sawing a 26-inch barrel off to 24 inches would accomplish the sasme thing, since the choke in most shotguns is in the
first inch or two behind the muzzle...so that can't be it.
Must be the concealable factor. About as concealable as a Ruger Super Redhawk...
Or is it because the term "Sawed-Off Shotgun" simply strikes terror in the hearts of the sheep in the same way that "Cop Killer Bullets" and Saturday Night Specials do? Does it conjure up images of Roaring Twenties gangsters operating under the orders of Al Capone and Shootouts at the OK Corral? Folklore and legend outlawed the quaint little artifacts other wise known as "Switchblades"...which for the most part aren't really suited for fighting or for utility. I always thought the "West Side Story" type stillettos were elegant and beautiful...but face it...They're pretty poor knives as knives go.
So...Someone please explain to me...without the bleating and wailing and gnashing of teeth...why a sawed-off shotgun is so much more evil and dangerous than its longer-tubed, socially acceptable sporting cousin?
They're both pretty nasty if you're on the wrong end, and I seriously doubt if it would make a lot of difference for those who happen to be so unfortunate.
CapnBald
Member
That's the kind of thing you would expect from Henry Waxman and his ilk.
- Status
Similar threads
