The hype and hysteria around so-called ghost guns got old long ago. The anti-gunners keep screaming about them as a problem and how the government should Do Something (TM). They’re not, and the numbers support it. Still, the hysteria continues.
Defense Distributed’s victory in the case formerly known as VanDerStock is an important win.
But over at The Volokh Conspiracy, noted Second Amendment attorney Stephen Halbrook makes the case that the ruling has ramifications well beyond so-called ghost guns.
Defense Distributed could have a broader impact, particularly if affirmed and further exposited by the Fifth Circuit, by challenging courts to strictly construe terms like “readily,” whether found in a regulation or the statutes. The vagueness of “readily” may be ameliorated somewhat by the requirement that the government must prove that a party “knew the weapon he possessed had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition….” Staples v. U.S. (1994).
Some of the “assault weapon” definitions include reference to parts that can be “readily” assembled into one. In a case I litigated years ago, it was decided that “the phrase ‘may be readily assembled’ does not provide sufficient information to enable a person of average intelligence to determine whether a particular combination of parts is within the ordinance’s coverage.” Peoples Rights Organization v. City of Columbus (6th Cir. 1998).
And really, the term “readily” isn’t even applied evenly, which is another problem with the due process issues Halbrook mentioned earlier in the piece. For example, if I’ve got an AR rifle and an AR pistol-sized upper, one could make the case that I can “readily” turn my rifle into a short-barreled rifle. Just a couple of pins that are designed to be easy to remove, then drop the new upper into the rifle lower, push the pins back in, and easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy, you’ve got an SBR.
SBRs are NFA items that, until recently, required everyone who wanted one to go through the NFA process. I could “readily” skip that if I wanted to and create an illegal NFA firearm. It’s part of why the law is so absolutely stupid. I didn’t exactly break news in the paragraph above, after all.
To say that kind of scares me is putting it mildly. I’m glad Defense Distributed has put the kibosh on that, even if many of us are now exempt from that rule thanks to a different case.
We shouldn’t have to spend our lives worrying about whether something we bought, sold, or owned is suddenly illegal and we could go to prison simply because someone said it was “readily” convertible, even if we didn’t find it quite that easy.
Our gun laws need to be cleaned up.
The easiest way to clean is to get rid of stuff.
I think the obvious answer here is to get rid of stuff, such as laws against things that can be “readily” converted, especially when no one has a freaking clue what that’s supposed to mean.
We shouldn’t stop there, mind you, but it’s a good place to start.
With a flamethrower.
Read the full article here
