Reply #74: You are applying an incorrect standard.

[msanthrope]

In order to claim strict scrutiny, (and therefore a compelling reason to regulate) you must first prove how the right to possess armor piercing bullets infringes a fundamental right. (and heck, I'd say ANY fundamental right, not just the 2nd. Let's open the whole bag.)

Please note that I was not the poster who raised the issue of 'civil rights.' It is a bit silly, IMHO, to a priori assume that possession of ammunition is a fundamental right in the absence of the ability to cite a case on point.

I don't think government, therefore, needs a 'compelling reason' to ban these articles, because you haven't proven that their banning interferes with a fundamental right.

So when you prove that, I'll give a 'compelling' reason. In the meantime, I think it would be rational review, and the obvious health and safety reasons would suffice.