Dangerous and Unusual Habla lawyer?

Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
913
Likes
119
Location
Braintree
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
Reading the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] circuit decision on assault weapon ban I had a thought. What is “dangerous and unusual”? Is this a two-step definition that a weapon must meet in order for it to be banned?

So here are my thoughts:
Looking at a pump action 12 gauge shotgun no one can claim that it’s unusual but is it dangerous and who does the danger need to be directed at? We don’t hear about catastrophic failure resulting in injury or death to the operator of a pump action shotgun so I imagine this type of failure is almost a statistical 0. What about the unfortunate person on the other end? Obviously they’re facing some danger but that is to be expected and I think it’s out the realm of the “dangerous and unusual” definition.

What about the Keltec KSG? It’s “unusual” in terms of the design and number out there. They’re not what anyone would consider “common” but the action is. It’s simply a pump action. It is no more dangerous than the standard 12 gauge. So while it might be considered “unusual” it can’t be considered “dangerous”. Now if we are considering jus the action of the shotgun, that being a pump action, then there is no case for it to be considered “unusual”. If the action of the gun is the core decider of “unusual” then there are no firearms that are currently able to be purchased that could be banned. They all basically operate on “common” designs.

A personal railgun as either a pistol or rifle would probably qualify as “unusual” if they were to suddenly hit the market but would they be considered “dangerous” if they were “less powerful” than common calibers?

I know that in the Ma stun gun case they used the “dangerous and unusual” to rule against Holden (?). If Ma considers them too new could it be argued that they don’t meet the definition of “dangerous” because the failure rate resulting in substantial injury and death to the operator is nil?
 
Very simply, dangerous and unusual is NOT the standard. All of these courts have been screwing it up.
 
Back
Top Bottom