Quote:
Originally Posted by emptypepsi
|
I think the disaster/gun policy makes sense.
I've been writing a lot on another thread on the DC case. The DC case in the Court of Appeals being thrown out doesn't bother me because the law banning virtually all guns even in the home was over zealous. It does bother me that some see this as a reason to try and over turn a 70 year precedent in the Supreme Court that weighs more heavily on the "well regulated militia" part and less on the "prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.
The current Supreme Court position which as I said has held up for the last 70 years now allows for reasonable gun restrictions like... No fully automatic weapons, no silencers, limits on the number of shells certain guns can legally hold, background checks before buying a weapon... things like that. It's been a good balance between allowing non-felon, non-mentally impaired citizens to own most weapons while keeping some type of a lid on the release of some of the more dangerous millitary style types.
If the 2nd Amendment would ever be interpreted by the high court as no gun may be infringed (restricted) it would send the United States back to the time of no background checks and Al Capone and the Tommy gun. And that's why Law enforcement supports the current 2nd Amendment interpretation or even something stronger.
Anyone else have thoughts?
Linear Mode
