If they're going that route, I'd like to see it argued back to the pre-2020 original prohib list too (which I think would be within the possible scope of what the SC can do here?). The whole thing collapses if a challenge based on "suitable for sporting and hunting purposes" is considered valid...as long as it doesn't go the other way and end up as a total semiauto ban.
I’m not sure - there was something mentioned about bringing evidence that wasn’t previously submitted. Arguments largely surround the OIC’s and associated legislative context.
It certainly won’t lead to a semi-auto ban. Unless the gov is truly ban hungry I think even they want to be done with this whole farce
If the SC invalidated the OICs from 2020 onward, there would be no consistent reason for it to not automatically invalidate the OICs from the 90s as well
8
u/FrozenSeas Jul 13 '26
If they're going that route, I'd like to see it argued back to the pre-2020 original prohib list too (which I think would be within the possible scope of what the SC can do here?). The whole thing collapses if a challenge based on "suitable for sporting and hunting purposes" is considered valid...as long as it doesn't go the other way and end up as a total semiauto ban.