Petition for Writ - Stephen Halbrook

19
magazine capacity, velocity, size and shape and the caliber of
ammunition it takes can all be altered.” Id. at 253. Springfield
further explains (id.):
Even if the term “slight” did not render this
provision void, the ordinance’s “modification” requirement
would. In order for differences to constitute a
“modification” the weapon in question must have been
developed from one of the listed firearms. . . . Ordinary
consumers cannot be expected to know the developmental
history of a particular weapon . . . .
The Coalition argued for objective standards, such as the
common definition of a regulated shotgun as one with a barrel less
than 18 inches in length. The court of appeals rejected this because
manufacturers could “skirt” it by making a barrel 1/8 inch longer.
App. 6a. This is like saying that going 54 mph “skirts” the 55 mph
speed limit, and that the law should prohibit “going too fast,” which
is no standard at all. 21
In sum, the decision conflicts with this Court’s precedents
on vagueness standards from Lanzetta to Morales, and is
inconsistent with Sixth Circuit precedents on application of these
standards to criminal prohibitions on firearms.
II. THE NAME BAN VIOLATES FREE SPEECH
The Act defines “assault firearm” in part as a firearm with
a specific name made by a specific corporate person, without
regard to any physical characteristic of the firearm. Censoring
21
See Connally v. General Constr.Co., 269 U.S. 385, 395 (1926)
(“locality” vague, as it “provokes the inquiry, ‘How near?’”).