Its silly to ask how gun control laws are justified in light of the express prohibition against the government infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?
What I see as silly is banning a gun based solely on its "scary" features like a collapsible stock, a detachable magazine, a pistol grip, a muzzle flash hider and so on. None of which present a danger to society.
Every right is able to be infringed, via due process. The state must demonstrate a compelling interest in order to do so. No state interest exists banning collapsible stocks though.
To infringe a right like that recognized in the 2A (the only one of its kind in the constitution actually) by due process requires an actionable violation by the individual because of the language "shall not be infringed". If you can find a way in the language of the 2a which allows you to weasel out of "shall not be infringed" do share with the class. Otherwise there are not compelling state interests which allow the state to infringe the right to keep and bear arms of the individual unless the individual is under arrest or incarcerated.
No. The second is no different than any other. The state must simply demonstrate a compelling interest served. Same way we can make laws "abridging the freedom of speech". Compelling state interest. Can't yell bomb on a plane. Then you shouldn't have any trouble citing court precedent to support your theory. Good luck.
yes, Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, and the Right to Bear Arms can be regulated if/when there is a compelling state interest that can be well articulated and proven in a court of law.
people who want to restrict civilians' possession or ownership of small arms based on idiotic reasons should be held in contempt by freedom loving Americans - - - Updated - - - only if the federal government has the delegated power to do so.
When the states came together to form their union, they gave it a small set of powers. Those powers are enumerated in Art I, section 8. Restricting the people of the several states from keeping, possessing, bearing, buying, or selling arms is not among those powers delegated. Those who support the rule of law cannot support any federal law that restricts firearms.
Hmmm, maybe you can point out where I said anything related to your reply, maybe you have me confused with someone else???
No. Who said they had no purpose? Perhaps I want to protect my night vision should someone break into my apartment? Perhaps I wank to go for a hike and reduce the length of the rifle? Perhaps I want to reduce the abusive recoil of a .300 Winmag? Just because you ignore my posts does not make them go away, nor does it validate your arguments in any way. You are yet to demonstrate how the existence of or the prohibition of these features will effect the overall leathality of a firearm in anyway.
It's the only one with shall not be infringed. Inciting a panic or a riot harms others. Simple firearm ownership harms no one and without harm you can't take action against them shall not be infringed etc. Some years back I could pick precedent showing that blacks were chattels, or that segregation was perfectly acceptable. I can find cases striking down a minimum wage or maximum work week until FDR threatened to pack the court when they mysteriously change their tune. I can show you cases ruling that sodomy is illegal. Etc. SCOTUS is nice but they aren't the mouth of freaking god or something.
Korematsu V United States ruled that the Federal government could legally imprison people of Japanese descent without trial.
You're the Eveready bunny! You just keep going and going and... And Wolverine is right about you. You're immune to the truth. What you call the "heatshield" is the hand guard. Several of us have elaborately shown that the same purpose could be served (protecting the hands) with a glove. Or a bakers' mit. Or a baseball mit. Or a towel. I use a collapsible stock to compensate for the amount of clothing I'm wearing. Nothing sinister in that. The threaded muzzle *can* support a suppressor, but the rest of the action has to be modified to accommodate the lower pressure pulse of subsonic ammo if you go that way. Most guys who use calibers like .300 Whisper or .300 Blackout don't even use the sub sonic ammo, because of that PITA. The dread flash suppressor! It does help to break up the flash a bit, but the primary purpose, both on the AR and on the AK is to serve as a "dust suppressor". When you're out in the dirt, firing from the prone or even kneeling position, a plain muzzle kicks up a pretty large plume of dust. That dust normally remains visible for a short time. The flash suppressor has ports at the sides and at the top, which divert the muzzle blast and prevent the dust plume. On the AK, it's just a simple "slant brake", which serves the same purpose. I'm so sorry that the true design and purpose of these things don't conform to your twisted world view.
Spot on, Noble Xenamnes! An AR functions perfectly well with all of these things removed. Let's remove that fearsome pistol grip as well. This will disable the safety, but we don't need no stinkin' safeties!
It has everything to do with a featureless AR! The same thinking that imprisoned the Japanese led to the need for a featureless AR. The same contempt for the CONUS by the same minds who believe that the Nanny State is the only way.
"Congress shall make no law abridging" no it isn't. Every right is able to be restricted. Inciting a panic doesn't necessarily harm others. It's the potential for harm that is mitigated. Just like firearm restrictions. I am an avid tun enthusiast by the way and I'm in no way advocating for further restrictions. True, but I would counter with current precedent, which is my point. They are the final say regarding constitutional matters.
