Correct, I thought he was hooked up in organized crime, but he was only bootlegging (this guy hit the unconstitutional jackpot--quite a patriot, one might say
)
Wikipedia said he was found shot before the court proceedings (I assume it was because we still associating with fellows of ill repute, but it may not have been). My point was "clean" plaintiffs stick around more--though baddies are perfectly capable of getting bogus laws rescinded if their attorney is any good (or bothers to show up).
I also realized that the ruling has a rather disconcerting logic; civvies' arms should not be restricted so long as they are servicible by an
organized militia (contradicts current bans, etc.). However, by that same logic, if there are no
organized militia (they are essentially dead as far as their original function goes), then there is no justifiable need for civilians to have anything!
Maybe I'm missing something here. The ruling also implies that the military has different weapons rights than civvies, since
organized militia was the termed used for the units which our weapons are to be useful for. So the old saw about howitzers and machineguns being legal by this ruling is bogus (except for the fact that many urban police organizations now use SBR/S's and machine guns)
A better "restriction" would have been "any weapon that is likely
unable to be used for legal purposes" --so no daisy cutters or indirect-fire weapons that
likely cannot be used without
some recklessness or lack of control
. All point and click interfaces up man-portable size would be protected, however (unless their sights were really, really off). This statement puts the burden-of-ban on the banners, not the law-abiding, to justify a restriction.
TCB
