it's somewhat bothersome to me that the citizenry are forced to justify why an action should be allowed or an item posessed (As opposed to permissiveness being the default and placing the burden on the governing entity wishing to remove such action
i didnt read the case - but this is what they went with? they couldnt have found a way to say no machinegun without shifting it to this, huh?
I don't think I was clear... I'm just lamenting the fact that as per this..
Title 18, section 925(d) of the United States Code provides that certain types of firearms may be imported into the United States. Among these are firearms “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” ... [T]he ATF determined that the BD44 was not importable under section 925(d)(3) because it was not “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” Plaintiff challenges the ATF's decision. Plaintiff argues that the ATF's interpretation of section 925(d)(3) is arbitrary and capricious, and seeks damages for lost income resulting from his inability to sell BD44s to prospective military re-enactors....
... the burden is on a citizen to establish that a given weapon must be, "...particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." in order to be legally imported/owned.
I find that disturbing because a) the burden should be on the entity wishing to restrict an action (in this case ownership of an item) to prove it *shoudln't* be allowed, and b) the idea that killing wee beasties is legally a great reason to have a gun, but reenacting history is not.