2nd Amendment rights (poll, military, money, government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Efficiency is not governable without infringement.
I don't trust those U.S. flags with the gold fringes on 'em.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to efficiency, though. Ammunition is still available and obtainable in Connecticut, just not in high capacity magazines.
I gave the libs a choice.. what we all know they think is the "right" choice (for the children's sake as they all say).. no rights for citizens to own any weapons for self defense.
So the new question at hand is does the 2nd amendment also protect ammunition purchases... Seems the left (democrat gun grabbers) have maybe found a loophole to this whole trying to ban guns thing by doing something new in CT... blocking / heavily regulating ammunition purchases (Ammunition for handguns and rifles/shotguns/long arms) by requiring certificates of approval from the state.. Who'd have thought?
There was no such thing as "ammunition" when the Constitution was written. All rifles then were flintlocks and muzzleloaders that took separate charges of powder, wadding, and shot to fire.
It's hard to say wht they would have included if they had been clairvoyant.
There was no such thing as "ammunition" when the Constitution was written. All rifles then were flintlocks and muzzleloaders that took separate charges of powder, wadding, and shot to fire.
It's hard to say wht they would have included if they had been clairvoyant.
I guess the Internet isn't covered by the first amendment then.
There was no such thing as "ammunition" when the Constitution was written. All rifles then were flintlocks and muzzleloaders that took separate charges of powder, wadding, and shot to fire.
It's hard to say wht they would have included if they had been clairvoyant.
There was ammunition. I put the ammo in bold above. FYI
The laws will be struck down as unconstitutional but before that will be impossible to be implemented as nobody will obey them and they won't be enforceable.
Many politicians will lose their jobs over this insanity.
So the new question at hand is does the 2nd amendment also protect ammunition purchases... Seems the left (democrat gun grabbers) have maybe found a loophole to this whole trying to ban guns thing by doing something new in CT... blocking / heavily regulating ammunition purchases (Ammunition for handguns and rifles/shotguns/long arms) by requiring certificates of approval from the state.. Who'd have thought?
For now, lower courts are interpreting ammunition "rights" in the context of the self defense right doctrine from Heller. Some ownership regulation of handguns is permissible so it stands to reason ammo purchase and possession regulations, as long as they are not onerous or outwardly prohibitory, would be permissible as well, for now.
Heller held the DC statutes were unconstitutional because they made it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Surely heavily restricting the purchase of ammo, to the point of making it impossible for citizens to use their guns, is arguably a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
As far as I understand the ammo portion of the Connecticut law, I think it would pass constitutional muster currently.
Let's put it this way . . . Right now, the right to possess and use ammunition is on the same plane as the right to possess and use the firearm it is chambered for. If a purchaser's permit and extensive background check is permissable to purchase the gun, it can be applied to the ammo for the gun.
I'm not saying that is be-all-end-all, I think that once SCOTUS gets to review more law, (and I think this entire Connecticut one is perfect to challenge), the protection sphere of the 2nd will be established far beyond the baby steps of Heller and McDonald and this CT law and much much more in many other jurisdictions will be invalidated.
For those interested, the best synopsis of the new CT law I have found is HERE
Last edited by Jeerleader; 04-02-2013 at 09:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems the left (democrat gun grabbers) have maybe found a loophole to this whole trying to ban guns thing by doing something new in CT... blocking / heavily regulating ammunition purchases (Ammunition for handguns and rifles/shotguns/long arms) by requiring certificates of approval from the state.. Who'd have thought? 
