See Chief Judge Kozinski’s concurrence in Bull v. San Francisco — and it’s as a hypothetical, not just because the case happened to involve such a weapon. The weapon was once mentioned as “Carl Gustaf” in an unpublished case, State v. Gustafson, 2003 WL 1566493 (Mont. 2003) (no apparent relation).

UPDATE: Thread winner from commenter Roscoe:

Typical liberal Ninth Circuit opinion. When Judge K reached for the heavy weapons he could have gone with the Javelin or TOW. But no, it had to be something made in Sweden.

Categories: Uncategorized    

    10 Comments

    1. CDU says:

      Interesting, but his reference is a bit ambiguous. Is he referring to the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, or the Carl Gustav M/45 submachinegun?

      Not that it would make any difference in the context of the opinion, of course.  (Quote)

    2. celticdragonchick says:

      I was going to ask the same thing. The Carl Gustav nitro hunting rifle, the Carl Gustav Mauser...or the 84 mm recoilless rifle???

      I want the recoilless rifle... ;)  (Quote)

    3. Longwalker says:

      As a one-time “reckless rifleman” (c. 1956) I also want it to be the Carl Gustav recoiless rifle, celticdragonchick. Of course, I am dating myself. When a “reckless” spoke, people listened.  (Quote)

    4. Menshevik says:

      Triva: the M45 was produced under license by Egypt as the “Port Said” submachine gun.  (Quote)

    5. SF Alpha Geek says:

      Longwalker: As a one-time “reckless rifleman” (c. 1956) I also want it to be the Carl Gustav recoiless rifle, celticdragonchick. Of course, I am dating myself. When a “reckless” spoke, people listened. 

      We used the Carl Gustav in Afghanistan as late as 2004.

      And I’m glad I read the opinion — from reading the two entries on the home page, it looked like the issue might be a Carl Gustav found in a body cavity search — that would be one motivated detainee . . .  (Quote)

    6. Just Dropping By says:

      In re the next paragraph of the concurrence, are “Smack” and “Crack” now brand names or something? I can’t see any reason to capitalize them otherwise.  (Quote)

    7. Roscoe says:

      Typical liberal Ninth Circuit opinion. When Judge K reached for the heavy weapons he could have gone with the Javelin or TOW. But no, it had to be something made in Sweden.  (Quote)

    8. ThatGuy says:

      Charlie G isn’t bad, but I like the SMAW with thermobaric rounds myself.  (Quote)

    9. Rich Rostrom says:

      I don’t think Kozinski is referring to any of the Swedish weapons mentioned; I think he means these monsters, which some have lumped together (I know I did at one time).

      Which serves the intended hyperbole better: a 9mm submachine gun, an 84mm recoilless rifle, or a 60 cm or 80 cm artillery piece?  (Quote)

    Leave a Reply