I fully expect the 9th to overturn this on appeal. One would hope that the supreme court would hear it after that, but, they seem to be terrified of actually deciding a case that really elaborates on the 2nd Amendment.
One thing I noticed about this opinion is that despite eviscerating many canards that are common surrounding the 2nd Amendment, the judge STILL incorrectly interprets the Miller opinion. As I have said here many, many times, the key bit of U.S. v Miller is the following:
=snip=
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
=end snip=
What this means is that the court was not told that sawed-off shotguns were used extensively in trench warfare during WWI. Had that court been informed of this, the decision likely would have gone the other direction. It would also have made for a very easy challenge of the rest of the statute.
Lots of understandable
Info,
Twice as Many
Modern rifles sold in
2018 as F-150s’.
Ha!
In fact those are the features the Miller court implied would be protected by 2A.