Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDrive
I believe what it means is that the Miller case only aplies to weapons commonly used by soldiers in the millitary. In other words, it protects your right to have a rifle, but not a fighter jet.
But I ain't one of them thar' lawyer types.....
|
That is exactly how I interpreted that.
What does that mean for the post-'86 ban?
How about the bans many states have on Class III stuff?
How about California's ban on "assault rifles"?