JUSTICE ALITO: — it may have to undergo a conversion, but before it’s converted, it must be a weapon?
[US Solicitor] GENERAL PRELOGAR: That’s right. We certainly don’t dispute that it has to be an instrument of combat designed and intended to be used in this way. And Congress made clear in the statutory history that the reason it used that term is because there are objects out there, toys and tools, that have a well-known non-weapon use but that actually do expel projectiles through the action of an explosive. A — a cap gun is an example of this. It — it expels bird shot, and so, therefore, it would fit within the functional definition. But it’s not a weapon because it’s not an instrument of combat or intended to be used in that way.
— Supreme Court arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok
“A — a cap gun is an example of this. It — it expels bird shot, and so, therefore, it would fit within the functional definition.”
The movie character of Jeff Spicoli in ‘Fast Times at Ridgemont High’ comes to mind :
“People on ‘Ludes should not be allowed to drive”…
I read that too, and because I know better, I didn’t cuss my folks for depriving me of apparent REAL cap guns…
It bothers me that access to our rights is being discussed and decided by such ignorant folk.
Only because they are allowed.
I had one exactly like that about 60 years ago.