If you colud have one Gun Law Abolished!

[Ed_in_Sac]

I don't know if you can call it "one gun law", but the idea that States and local communities can have additional gun restrictions does not seem right. The Fed's claim States like Montana can not supersede federal laws on the manufacture of firearms. So it is illogical that States and local communities can have the right to add additional restriction to the federal firearms laws already in place. ie:

JMO

[Vacaville]

1933 NFA

+1000

[berto]

Of the listed options mag capacity.

[FatalKitty]

10 day wait... we have the technology - it can be done.

I don't care about mag capacity or BB.. cause i'm not an AR fanatic - and so far

[jaymz]

10 day wait. It isn't illegal to posses or use high cap mags and mag locks are a pita, but not unbearable.

[cvc04]

My choice. All of the above.

[jdberger]

GCA 68.



(or at least the State residency requirements)

[Super Spy]

I'd kill the CA AWB......that would mean all sorts of real AR's and AK's

[CharlieK]

1933 NFA

That's the one!

[Dr Rockso]

That's the one!

It is if you mean the 1934 NFA.

[choprzrul]

There are a couple of items that, considering the bigger picture, I would have liked to see in the poll:

1. 1968 GCA
2. 1934 NFA
3. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Granted, #3 isn't a law, but rather a SCOTUS decision. But I look at #3 as the foundation upon which most or all of our gun control laws are based. Given Heller, and presumptively McDonald, it would seem Miller is being vacated by the court since Miller is based upon the position that 2A applies to a militia.

Just my personal point of view.

.

[Dr Rockso]

Granted, #3 isn't a law, but rather a SCOTUS decision. But I look at #3 as the foundation upon which most or all of our gun control laws are based. Given Heller, and presumptively McDonald, it would seem Miller is being vacated by the court since Miller is based upon the position that 2A applies to a militia.

That's how it was debated for decades, but really Miller didn't directly address the individual right vs collective (militia) right issue. Neither Miller nor Layton were a part of any militia, the only thing that the court addressed was the SBS's perceived lack of suitability as a military weapon.

[goodlookin1]

1934 NFA and move to a free state

[joedogboy]

That's how it was debated for decades, but really Miller didn't directly address the individual right vs collective (militia) right issue. Neither Miller nor Layton were a part of any militia, the only thing that the court addressed was the SBS's perceived lack of suitability as a military weapon.

Because Miller basically stated that weapons without military/militia application do not have as much protection under the 2A, it seems like it should actually be cited as precedent in favor of overturning "AW" bans.

California's "AW" bans have specifically targeted firearms that have the most resemblance (physical and practical) with actual military firearms, and that use parts and ammunition that re interchangeable with military arms - things that make them the most suitable firearms for citizens to use in their capacity as an unorganized "militia", either serving independently, or in conjunction with the active duty and reserve components of the armed forces.

Flash suppressor - useful for militia.
Bayonet lug - useful for militia.
High Cap magazine - useful for militia.
Detachable magazine - useful for militia.
Ability to accept standard GI M-16/M-4 mags, ammo, and spare parts - useful for militia.

The unfortunate side effect of such a legal challenge to the patently unconstitutional "AW" bans is that it could then be used as an argument in favor of banning all firearms that are not in military calibers or military-type configurations.

[grammaton76]

I would ask the magic genie to do away with mag locks.

You can always buy your large capacity magazines from an armored car company.