On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:27:07 GMT, Andy Asberry
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 05:46:12 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Andy Asberry" wrote in message
. ..

A plain-Jane 10-22 stock has a pistol grip as opposed to a Winchester
Model 94 with a straight stock.

I don't think they're talking about that type of pistol grip, Andy. They're
talking about the kind that's on an M-16.

We got into that argument here in NJ when our "assault weapons" ban was
being fought out, over a decade ago. I don't recall if the language was
changed to clarify the point or not, but it was obvious from talking to them
that the state legislatures intended the type of grip that's almost
separated from the buttstock.

Ed Huntress


That is the problem with all restrictive laws. The next regime may
interpret them differently to suit their own agenda.

The thing that galls me is that it doesn't effect how lethal the
firearm is. I really get tired of the chipping away of rights that
don't reduce crime. I know, that is what the antigun side hopes for.
Sometimes, I wish for a definitive Supreme Court decision. Then we
could have the inevitable revolution.

Will a current Federal court help?

http://www.mcsm.org/indivright.html

Might want to review the other 35 SCOTUS affirmations of the 2nd
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann