Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge
1–10 of 58 posts
Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge
#2"U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling."
I was waiting to see the exciting places this precedent would take us. Though I have to admit, I was expecting the "AR-15's aren't muskets" argument to get out there first.
Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge
#3"U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling." I was waiting to see the exciting places this precedent would take us. Though I have to admit, I was expecting the "AR-15's aren't muskets" argument to get out there first.
I wonder if any regulation of fully automatic weapons is constitutional now.
Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge
#4"U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling." I was waiting to see the exciting places this precedent would take us. Though I have to admit, I was expecting the "AR-15's aren't muskets" argument to get out there first.
I wonder if any regulation of fully automatic weapons is constitutional now.
If you take the Second Amendment literally as written, even regulation of personal nuclear weapons is unconstitutional.
Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if any regulation of fully automatic weapons is constitutional now.
If you take the Second Amendment literally as written, even regulation of personal nuclear weapons is unconstitutional.
We all know, the only way to stop a bad guy with a nuclear weapon is with a good guy with a nuclear weapon.
Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge
#6Why does the US treat 1st Amendment freedom of speech differently than 2nd Amendment keeping and bearing arms?
Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you take the Second Amendment literally as written, even regulation of personal nuclear weapons is unconstitutional.
We all know, the only way to stop a bad guy with a nuclear weapon is with a good guy with a nuclear weapon.
That does seem to be the case.
Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if any regulation of fully automatic weapons is constitutional now.
If you take the Second Amendment literally as written, even regulation of personal nuclear weapons is unconstitutional.
I suppose the real question is how far the current supreme court is willing to go then?
Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge
#9"U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling." I was waiting to see the exciting places this precedent would take us. Though I have to admit, I was expecting the "AR-15's aren't muskets" argument to get out there first.
Is the US in any way special that makes this process of regulating weapons so difficult? Do other countries not have 2A-like legislation?
Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if any regulation of fully automatic weapons is constitutional now.
If you take the Second Amendment literally as written, even regulation of personal nuclear weapons is unconstitutional.
Sure, but posessing some of the materials needed for producing such a weapon is indeed illegal due to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Here is an article about some tangentially related recent events that mentions it (and explains as well)[0].
Owning a personal nuclear weapon might not be technically illegal. However, producing it and transferring it is illegal. Which, seems to be almost functionally equivalent to being illegal to possess.
This is just purely my thoughts on how that hypothetical could play out, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't stupid curious about it myself.
0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/03/19/w...