The rifles targeted by these laws are rarely used by criminals but commonly used by law-abiding Americans, who own more than 30 million of them. The latter point is constitutionally relevant because the Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment applies to “bearable arms” that are “in common use” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.”
The long-simmering question posed by these cases is whether the Second Amendment guarantees “the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” If so, other restrictions on the arms Americans are allowed to buy, such as magazine limits and California’s handgun specifications, may be vulnerable to constitutional challenges.
The decided cases also have potentially broad implications.
Oh my yes, they do indeed.
And the gun bigots and control freaks have to be flat hating this.
And the gun bigots and control freaks have to be flat hating this.
4 comments:
Quisling Roberts and the sandwich maker will join the commies to limit our rights in some fashion. They'll find a penumbra or something to split the baby on and send it back to the lower courts. I'm a pessimist but I have faith that their past performance will show up in this decision.
Not being petty at all, but we can't let the Enemy set the language. The 2nd never gave us the right for an effective rifle, it says that the Govt and the enemies of America cannot restrict the inalienable rights to them that we already possess. Can't give an inch more.
Amen!
Affirming Old Scoutmaster's comment, I repeat the text of a meme, SOTI:
"Miliary-style weapons in the hands of civilians is literally the entire f*cking point of the Second Amendment."
Nothing about 'sporting use'. Nothing about 'certain features'. Several supporting documents about the intent and scope of the right---to resist tyrannical government and defend against individual aggression with effective arms.. 2A limits the GOVERNMENT, not citizens. The vast majority of U.S. gun law is flatly unconstitutional.
Post a Comment