SKS Rifle Owner Prevails in Chicago “Assault Weapon” Case

Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,234
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
FAIRFAX, Va. --(Ammoland.com)- In a case supported by the NRA, David Lawson, who had previously been a plaintiff in McDonald v. Chicago, challenged the decision by the City of Chicago not to allow him to register two normal SKS rifles with fixed ten-round magazines.

Although the rifles do not meet Chicago’s definition of an “assault weapon,” Chicago refused registration because they were “convertible” into “assault weapons.”

The city denied the registration in spite of the fact Chicago has a separate provision for dealing with registered rifles that are converted into “assault rifles” after registration.

I love this part...

At the hearing, Mr. Lawson and his counsel presented the SKS rifles for examination by the court, but the two “expert witnesses” for the City, both police officers, refused to even touch them.

I'm just wondering if it wasn't a deliberate attempt to blow the case so as not to have to fight (and pay for), yet another appeal, or not wanting to become the test case for the SCOTUS to rule on the Constitutionality of State/local AWB's?

http://www.ammoland.com/
 
Last edited:
cosmoline is sticky unlike the K-Y jelly that they are used to using on the subjects of chicago. it's harder to wash off and they just didn't want to have to deal with that.
 
may be the "experts" have never seen anything like that and could not find "the end that goes up" to explain how they could be converted into assault rifles.
 
At what point do the good citizens of Chicago tell their elected officials "Cut the crap!! You're spending shitloads of taxpayer money on a losing battle. Stop throwing good money away on lawyers!!" I mean, those poor people must be sick and tired of it by now...
 
I imagine that the expert witnesses didn't want to have anything to do with the rifles because they knew that they would then be asked embarrassing questions like "How would YOU convert this to an assault weapon?"

Naahh ... Atilla's answer is better.
 
At what point do the good citizens of Chicago tell their elected officials "Cut the crap!! You're spending shitloads of taxpayer money on a losing battle. Stop throwing good money away on lawyers!!" I mean, those poor people must be sick and tired of it by now...
I dont think their "elected officials" give the slightest shit about any citizens concerns, much like in mass. They are in it for them, and them only, much like in mass.
 
I dont think their "elected officials" give the slightest shit about any citizens concerns, much like in mass. They are in it for them, and them only, much like in mass.

...and they have access to an unlimited amount of (someone else's) money to further their agenda. Why should they ever throttle back the BS? There is absolutely no incentive or accountability.
 
At what point do the good citizens of Chicago tell their elected officials "Cut the crap!! You're spending shitloads of taxpayer money on a losing battle. Stop throwing good money away on lawyers!!" I mean, those poor people must be sick and tired of it by now...

never, because the majority support what the city is doing, even if they use tax payers money.

Most people are against guns. they think that making something illegal will solve the isue, jsut like it solved the issue with drugs [/sarcasm]
 
Back
Top Bottom