In part: In 2000, New York passed a law nearly identical to the federal law, defining "assault weapon" based on two generic features.15 But on January 15, 2013, after the bill was just introduced the day before,16 the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act was signed into law, declaring countless numbers of ordinary firearms to be "assault weapons" based on a single generic characteristic.17 Having been so relabeled, these firearms purportedly lost their Second Amendment protection and were banned, other than those registered by a deadline.18 Yet nothing changed other than how the word was used. As the Supreme Court once noted: "This recalls Lewis Carroll’s classic advice on the construction of language: ‘When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’"19
Constitutional rights may not be extinguished by such linguistic manipulation. The test for Second Amendment protection is not based on what a legislature may call various arms, but, as the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller,20 on whether they are "in common use" and "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."
Constitutional rights may not be extinguished by such linguistic manipulation. The test for Second Amendment protection is not based on what a legislature may call various arms, but, as the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller,20 on whether they are "in common use" and "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."
Comment