Langenator
Member
Can't he work with the premise that SBR's are military weapons and requiring registration is an infringement on the right to bear arms?
Not in the 9th Circuit. See Silviera v Lockyer. (Also read Kozinski's brilliant and oft-quoted dissent while you're at it.)
Also, does anyone know the history of WA state law on SBRs? I know they're banned by state law now, as are FAs and SBSs, but I also know that FAs were legal from 1991-1994 (AG changed the interpretation of the law in 1991, Legislature changed the law in 1994) and any acquired during that time period are grandfathered.
I'm guessing that since he wasn't charged under state law that the weapon in question was grandfathered.