Most of what I've read regarding Heller focuses on the "consumer" end - what we may be able to buy & own, perhaps carry. I'd like to look at the manufacture, sale, distribution aspect and here's why.
With a presumption incorporation will be made, my concern regarding Heller is that much of the case was made on the basis of an outright ban - in short, that in future cases anything short of a ban may be viewed as a reasonable restriction. From a buyer's perspective, in CA I can now buy quite a few types of semi auto rifles and handguns. I believe in round numbers we have access to about 1,500 models of handguns. So from an ability to own and possess point of view, there's certainly no ban and I think most people would be inclined to decide 1,500 models is quite a variety. I think the same could be said for semi auto rifles regarding the AW laws.
But, from a manufacturer perspective - let's say Les Baer or STI - all or virtually all of their products are or (if they leave the "safe gun" list) shall be banned from sale in CA due to the AW laws & safe handgun list requirements. In effect, they are banned from providing their product to consumers.
So:
1) Does Heller open any course of action for manufacturers that will
benefit gun owners?
2) The 1st Amendment would not be satisfied with "you can read a
newspaper, banning radio is OK" - why shouldn't that apply to the 2nd?
I am making a presumption that gun manufacturers and distributors would like to see the AW laws and safe list eliminated, but is that a safe presumption? Would Ruger want to see AW laws eliminated so people will buy ARs instead of Mini 14s? Does Smith want the safe gun list eliminated so people can buy semi autos instead of revolvers? Very easy to take the position that gun companies want an open market as much as possible, but as we've seen with CFLC and the (maybe) ammo law that's not always the case, correct?
With a presumption incorporation will be made, my concern regarding Heller is that much of the case was made on the basis of an outright ban - in short, that in future cases anything short of a ban may be viewed as a reasonable restriction. From a buyer's perspective, in CA I can now buy quite a few types of semi auto rifles and handguns. I believe in round numbers we have access to about 1,500 models of handguns. So from an ability to own and possess point of view, there's certainly no ban and I think most people would be inclined to decide 1,500 models is quite a variety. I think the same could be said for semi auto rifles regarding the AW laws.
But, from a manufacturer perspective - let's say Les Baer or STI - all or virtually all of their products are or (if they leave the "safe gun" list) shall be banned from sale in CA due to the AW laws & safe handgun list requirements. In effect, they are banned from providing their product to consumers.
So:
1) Does Heller open any course of action for manufacturers that will
benefit gun owners?
2) The 1st Amendment would not be satisfied with "you can read a
newspaper, banning radio is OK" - why shouldn't that apply to the 2nd?
I am making a presumption that gun manufacturers and distributors would like to see the AW laws and safe list eliminated, but is that a safe presumption? Would Ruger want to see AW laws eliminated so people will buy ARs instead of Mini 14s? Does Smith want the safe gun list eliminated so people can buy semi autos instead of revolvers? Very easy to take the position that gun companies want an open market as much as possible, but as we've seen with CFLC and the (maybe) ammo law that's not always the case, correct?
Comment