By the same token, the united state supreme court has never ruled in favor of such nonsensical limits. Nor is it likely that they would, as such would never pass strict scrutiny.
Are you aware that if you purchase two or more handguns within five business days that the ATF is so informed?
No, but they have ruled that a deprivation of liberty is per se harm. I can easily prove you're depriving them of their liberty, therefore your statement that there was no harm is false. A simple point, why is it so difficult for you to accept it?
That's your opinion. Can you support it? Would being limited to one handgun purchase per year be a deprivation of liberty? Would being limited to one handgun purchase in ten years be a deprivation of liberty? Where does the Constitution or SCOTUS empower the Congress to limit the number of time that the right can be exercised? How would you expect the government to enforce it?
Pray tell how so? How would such a measure ever prove sufficient to pass constitutional muster? What compelling interest does government have that would warrant such a course of action? How is such regarded as the least restrictive approach possible in furthering such an interest?
So one per year or decade would be more effective than one per month, and therefore such levels are preferable?
Such is not a compelling government interest. Nor does the above do anything to explain just how such an attempt would ever pass the hurdle of constitutional muster. Get to work in demonstrating how the measure is legitimate rather than arbitrary and capricious.
So one per year or decade would be more effective than one per month, and therefore such levels are preferable?
If reducing the chance of criminals getting their hands on firearms was truly a compelling government interest, these individuals would not be released back into society to begin with. But such is not being done, so it is not a compelling government interest. Now get back to work in explaining how restricting legal firearm sales to only one every thirty days passes constitutional muster. Demonstrate how it is the least restrictive approach possible in achieving such a goal.
It was yourself who wished to engage in a purely academic discussion without reliance on the united states constitution as a defense against certain proposals. Now it appears that desire is being walked back when the proposal entails something that is not supported on the part of yourself. Such contradictory matters aside, what difference does it make? According to yourself, government has a legitimate, compelling interest in preventing criminal individuals from illegally gaining access to firearms. If that interest is truly legitimate, and so compelling, that it warrants infringement of one constitutional right in order to achieve, then it can legitimately warrant infringement of a different constitutional right if it has the potential for greater effectiveness.
yes it is. and what you fail to understand is this. Since government doesn't have the proper power to ban you from buying a gun, it doesn't suddenly gain that power based on your exercise of your rights
you don't understand government powers. The federal government doesn't have the power to ban or prevent you from buying a handgun due to the second amendment. This negative restriction on government does not suddenly disappear-nor does the government gain a power it never had-merely because you have just bought a gun
Of course it is. Liberty is the ability to do what you choose. Not being able to buy more than one handgun a month does deprive me of that ability to choose.
REad for comprehension. He said that most guns used in California crimes were bought originally in California. Only California laws would influence that.
And limiting me to buying one handgun a month does nothing to reduce the chances of criminals getting their hands on guns.
How can anyone propose any debate about guns and set aside the 2nd? That's pure folly. Its a weak attempt to 'normalize' people to an idea, ignore the Constitution, and discuss issues and find weak points that can be exploited without an amendment...
This is what people do when the hate the fact the Constitution prevents them from running roughshod over the rights of the people.