Among the gun laws that DC v Heller argues do not violate the Second Amendment are those that restrict "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." That seems pretty vague to me, so we're been tossing the idea around.
Its been suggested that all guns are dangerous - in addition to many other objects - but since they used the term, I suppose there is a distinction between guns that are dangerous and those that are. Or perhaps are less dangerous. Might these be the ones with long magazines and armor piercing bullets? Perhaps the gun itself is not so dangerous, but the peripheral equipment that makes it so.
I'm still not sure what to make of "unusual" weapons, not whether the weapons have to be both "dangerous and unusual."
We might want to keep batting this around for a while.
These links might be helpful:
- Dangerous and Unusual Misdirection.
- Dangerous and Unusual Weapons.
- No right to own a machine gun.
- United States v Henry.
- Second Amendment, Heller and Originalist Jurisprudence.
File this under unusual - maybe not dangerous.
