Supreme court decision for Black talon ban?

[Inigoes]

My google foo is lacking...

Can anyone help point me to the URL of the Supreme Court decision, stating Congress can't ban ammunition?

It happened in the 90's, IIRC.

[JayBell]

My google foo is lacking...

Can anyone help point me to the URL of the Supreme Court decision, stating Congress can't ban ammunition?

It happened in the 90's, IIRC.

there was no law or court decision that "banned" black talon ammunition, instead, after the BS outcry by the media which was full of lies, Winchester removed the Black Talon ammunition voluntarily.

they re-released the ammo without the black luballoy coating, and renamed it Winchester RANGER SXT and made the ammuntion LE sale only...however, its 100% legal to own/shoot/carry by civvies... the LE only designation is merely a means of sales and tax control, ammunition marked LE only has not had the 11% excise tax paid.

another slightly less "pointy when expanded" version is sold to civvies

also, congress clearly can ban ammunition by law, usually by features, either AP, or whatnot.

As far as I know, there's no USSC case regarding the banning of ammunition.

[Inigoes]

What I am looking for is the Supreme Court decision from the 90s (could be the 80s) that says Congress can't ban categories of ammo.

I remember the news reports, just not the case to reference.

Then again, I could be losing my mind

edit: a news article before the ban was passed http://articles.latimes.com/1986-03-..._1_bullet-bill

[JDrini-NJ]

Cheaper than Dirt has them, the SXT's and if you look at gun broker, you can still get the actual black talons.

In fact, I just ordered 4 boxes of Ranger T series ammo from Cheaper than Dirt!

[streaker69]

Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), chief sponsor of the bill, along with Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), noted that it is supported by numerous law enforcement groups.

It's nice to see he's been a dumbass all his life.

[UBC2006]

There is no US Supreme Court case addressing a law that bans black talons. In fact, I don't know of any case on that subject at all.

What you are probably thinking of is McCarthy v. Olin, 119 F.3d 148, which was a tort case, not a Constitutional law case, and was before the second circuit court of appeals, not the Supreme Court.

This was the case where the fellow on the NY train started shooting people randomly with talons. Of course the injured parties and decedents' families could not sue the wacko and recover money worth their or their loved ones' lives, so they sued the manufacturer of the ammo in federal district court based on diversity and not federal question jurisdiction.

The district court dismissed the case without ever hearing it on its merits because the claim was bullshit. Plaintiffs essentially claimed that talons had a design defect that rendered them inherently dangerous (i.e. that they were intentionally designed to be more vicious and lethal than regular ammunition and that this design was defective because manufacturers have a duty to their customers and the public at large to protect them from injury from their products and this design breaches that duty).

Of course, the court said that ammunition is designed to injure and kill, and that talons do not have a defect in design to let stand a products liability case.

Plaintiffs appealed to the second circuit, which upheld the district court's dismissal.

The Supreme Court never got involved.

[UBC2006]

By the way, the article you posted has nothing to do with Black Talons. It talks about armor piercing ammo. Two totally different things. Plus, the article is from 1986 and as far as I remember, Black Talons didn't come out until the mid 90s.

There is no Supreme Court case saying that the law in the article you posted is unconstitutional.

Based on my knowledge of Constitutional law, I would say that Congress can indeed ban certain kinds of ammunition.

[Dave49]

There is no US Supreme Court case addressing a law that bans black talons. In fact, I don't know of any case on that subject at all.

What you are probably thinking of is McCarthy v. Olin, 119 F.3d 148, which was a tort case, not a Constitutional law case, and was before the second circuit court of appeals, not the Supreme Court.

This was the case where the fellow on the NY train started shooting people randomly with talons. Of course the injured parties and decedents' families could not sue the wacko and recover money worth their or their loved ones' lives, so they sued the manufacturer of the ammo in federal district court based on diversity and not federal question jurisdiction.

The district court dismissed the case without ever hearing it on its merits because the claim was bullshit. Plaintiffs essentially claimed that talons had a design defect that rendered them inherently dangerous (i.e. that they were intentionally designed to be more vicious and lethal than regular ammunition and that this design was defective because manufacturers have a duty to their customers and the public at large to protect them from injury from their products and this design breaches that duty).

Of course, the court said that ammunition is designed to injure and kill, and that talons do not have a defect in design to let stand a products liability case.

Plaintiffs appealed to the second circuit, which upheld the district court's dismissal.

The Supreme Court never got involved.

Was that the Bernard Goetz (sp) incident where he shot the gang bangers on the train?

[t1066]

Was that the Bernard Goetz (sp) incident where he shot the gang bangers on the train?

Nope, Colin Ferguson.

[JayBell]

Nope, Colin Ferguson.

Who killed NY Rep Carolyn McCarthys husband I believe in that LI Express massacre... she then ran on a gun control party line and won.

shes the "shoulder thing that goes up" antigun moron.