Those cases only verify what I think has been this Court’s judgment in Heller and Miller, Congress’s judgment, the judgment of State legislatures for a long time, that these are exclusively used for unlawful purposes.
John F. Bash
Assistant to the Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Oral arguments to SCOTUS in Samuel James Johnson v. United States
November 5, 2014
[H/T to Ry and David Hardy.
Bash is referring to short barreled shotguns.
This was said even though he knows tens of thousands of these guns are lawfully owned by people and are not used for unlawful purposes. He claims to believe these are only owned by collectors who don’t actually use them. Any use, he claims, would be exclusively for an unlawful purpose.
His justification appears to be because of NFA34 and various state legislatures put restrictions on this item beyond the restrictions on some other type of firearms. That is what the U.S. government thinks of one aspect of the right to keep and bear arms. Once a gun is restricted then that is justification for more restrictions.
Apparently if there were laws against something then there must have been a valid reason and the courts should not question the law. I would like to hear him draw similar conclusion from the history of laws against interracial marriage, laws against homosexual acts, and prohibitions against people of color using public swimming pools.—Joe]