Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Constitutionality of Proposed Firearms Legislation [View all]Deep13
(39,154 posts)2. I don't think it would run afoul of the Constitution...
...unless it were retroactive or the magazine restriction was so low that it effectively banned handguns.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
85 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The bottom line is weapons that can cause mass carnage in a matter of seconds
SecularMotion
Feb 2013
#4
Your fundamental problem is that "military style features" do not contribute to
krispos42
Feb 2013
#14
What you call a barrel shroud is actually a "handguard" and it's standard on ALL rifles. n/t
Ashgrey77
Feb 2013
#23
Since keeping arms, like bearing arms, referred to militia service - you'll be fine!
jmg257
Feb 2013
#25
I think he means 'the hoax' that the 2nd only secures the right to bear arms as part
jmg257
Feb 2013
#34
Since Heller, it really isn't relevant...for now. It is an interesting study of history, though.
jmg257
Feb 2013
#48
so explain why the right of THE PEOPLE to rkba shall not be infringed then.
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2013
#51
Don't know - haven't spent any time investigating what the Guard must/musn't do. nt
jmg257
Feb 2013
#54
As noted, it doesn't protect the militias' right, it protects the people's right
jmg257
Feb 2013
#56
Based on your info, I would say such disqualifiers would infringe on the right to serve
jmg257
Feb 2013
#58
It may be an infringement on the intent of the 2nd, or the intent of the founding fathers to avoid
iiibbb
Feb 2013
#59
I don't think you understand the distinction between 'well regulated' and 'unorganized'.
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2013
#72
You're free to believe that all you want. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2013
#74
You also might dig into Federalist Paper #29, Hamilton spoke on this at length.
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2013
#78
Have read Hamilton many times. He described a select Militia much closer to the Guard then
jmg257
Feb 2013
#81
The issue with these State Defense forces then, is as you noted - they CANNOT be federalized.
jmg257
Feb 2013
#75
there is no constitutionally protected right for any individual to own firearms.
bowens43
Feb 2013
#7
Well, if it is "sickening," try getting to the facility quickly (or out of here).
Eleanors38
Feb 2013
#85