As the title states, there's a group in Flotida trying to get an amendment on the 2020 ballot that will ban so called assault weapons. If this gets on the ballot, I'm obviously going to vote no. But I'm posting this to spread the word and hopefully we can stop the petition befpre it can even gain enough votes. More info linked in the video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6FskBexDyyw&feature=em-uploademail
Erm... You can't stop a petition.As the title states, there's a group in Flotida trying to get an amendment on the 2020 ballot that will ban so called assault weapons. If this gets on the ballot, I'm obviously going to vote no. But I'm posting this to spread the word and hopefully we can stop the petition befpre it can even gain enough votes. More info linked in the video.
The SCOTUS has routinely upheld the ability of states and municipalities to ban certain types of firearms, even after Heller. Even that ruling made it very clear that bans on specific types of firearms (such as assault rifles) are constitutionally sound.I hope someone takes it to the supreme Court. It's dumb to ban guns based on appearance.
The SCOTUS has routinely upheld the ability of states and municipalities to ban certain types of firearms, even after Heller. Even that ruling made it very clear that bans on specific types of firearms (such as assault rifles) are constitutionally sound.
The SCOTUS has routinely upheld the ability of states and municipalities to ban certain types of firearms, even after Heller. Even that ruling made it very clear that bans on specific types of firearms (such as assault rifles) are constitutionally sound.
As the title states, there's a group in Flotida trying to get an amendment on the 2020 ballot that will ban so called assault weapons. If this gets on the ballot, I'm obviously going to vote no. But I'm posting this to spread the word and hopefully we can stop the petition befpre it can even gain enough votes. More info linked in the video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6FskBexDyyw&feature=em-uploademail
Erm... You can't stop a petition.
Either they are going to get the required 766,200 signatures, or they aren't.
The SCOTUS has routinely upheld the ability of states and municipalities to ban certain types of firearms, even after Heller. Even that ruling made it very clear that bans on specific types of firearms (such as assault rifles) are constitutionally sound.
They've not upheld any such thing.
And again.... You can't stop people from signing it.You can by having enough people to not sign it.
The Constitution is quite clear that governments are empowered to regulate firearms. There are limits to those regulations, but there is really no question that assault rifle bans are legal.Well, then I wish the court would follow the Constitution.
And assault rifle isn't a type of firearm.
And again.... You can't stop people from signing it.
Again, the threshold is 766,200 signatures -- in a state with around 20 million residents. Chances are pretty good they will get enough signatures. Enjoy your next election.
The Constitution is quite clear that governments are empowered to regulate firearms. There are limits to those regulations, but there is really no question that assault rifle bans are legal.
You do not have an unlimited right to own any type of firearm you want, just because you want it. Again, even the most radically pro-gun-rights ruling in US history (Heller) explicitly recognized that power.
And yes, an assault rifle is a type of firearm. Please spare us the self-serving semantic nonsense, kthx.
Well the Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed. Banning any rifle that works and functions just like any other rifle is infringing.The Constitution is quite clear that governments are empowered to regulate firearms. There are limits to those regulations, but there is really no question that assault rifle bans are legal.
well I'm not arguing for the right to own an unusual weapon, it's a rifle just like any other rifle.You do not have an unlimited right to own any type of firearm you want, just because you want it.
So what?Again, even the most radically pro-gun-rights ruling in US history (Heller) explicitly recognized that power.
Dismissing a fundamental component as semantics in an argument that is about pure semantics is dishonest on your part.And yes, an assault rifle is a type of firearm. Please spare us the self-serving semantic nonsense, kthx.
No, what it says is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Well the Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.
Incorrect. Banning all rifles is unconstitutional; banning "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges" is constitutional.Banning any rifle that works and functions just like any other rifle is infringing.
The classification of an assault rifle is based on physical properties of the firearm. Those physical properties are not wished away by semantic games.Dismissing a fundamental component as semantics in an argument that is about pure semantics is dishonest on your part.
No, what it says is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Those of us who understand the Constitution also know that the 2nd Amendment was originally only a restriction on the federal government; state and local governments were empowered to regulate firearms, within the confines of their own state constitutions (many of which did not explicitly protect those rights until recent times). Although this was technically changed by Heller, from a practical perspective, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the states has had almost no effect.
Also, those of us who understand the Constitution know that the protection on rights is not absolute. The 1st Amendment does not stop the government from enforcing libel laws, or outlawing threats, or curtailing the circulation of classified documents. The right to be secure in your home from unreasonable searches does not mean the police cannot enter your home if they are in hot pursuit of a suspect, or if they see you using illegal drugs in your living room through the bay window.
Incorrect. Banning all rifles is unconstitutional; banning "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges" is constitutional.
The classification of an assault rifle is based on physical properties of the firearm. Those physical properties are not wished away by semantic games.
No, what it says is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Those of us who understand the Constitution also know that the 2nd Amendment was originally only a restriction on the federal government; state and local governments were empowered to regulate firearms, within the confines of their own state constitutions (many of which did not explicitly protect those rights until recent times). Although this was technically changed by Heller, from a practical perspective, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the states has had almost no effect.
Also, those of us who understand the Constitution know that the protection on rights is not absolute. The 1st Amendment does not stop the government from enforcing libel laws, or outlawing threats, or curtailing the circulation of classified documents. The right to be secure in your home from unreasonable searches does not mean the police cannot enter your home if they are in hot pursuit of a suspect, or if they see you using illegal drugs in your living room through the bay window.
Incorrect. Banning all rifles is unconstitutional; banning "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges" is constitutional.
The classification of an assault rifle is based on physical properties of the firearm. Those physical properties are not wished away by semantic games.
Incorrect. Banning all rifles is unconstitutional; banning "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges" is constitutional.
The classification of an assault rifle is based on physical properties of the firearm. Those physical properties are not wished away by semantic games.
Who's right? Or to put it another way, the right of whom?No, what it says is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[/B]
Except the tenth amendment.Those of us who understand the Constitution also know that the 2nd Amendment was originally only a restriction on the federal government; state and local governments were empowered to regulate firearms, within the confines of their own state constitutions (many of which did not explicitly protect those rights until recent times). Although this was technically changed by Heller, from a practical perspective, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the states has had almost no effect.
yes... Do tedious... Limits to our liberties blah blah blah.Also, those of us who understand the Constitution know that the protection on rights is not absolute. The 1st Amendment does not stop the government from enforcing libel laws, or outlawing threats, or curtailing the circulation of classified documents. The right to be secure in your home from unreasonable searches does not mean the police cannot enter your home if they are in hot pursuit of a suspect, or if they see you using illegal drugs in your living room through the bay window.
That isn't what an assault weapon is.Incorrect. Banning all rifles is unconstitutional; banning "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges" is constitutional.
what properties?The classification of an assault rifle is based on physical properties of the firearm. Those physical properties are not wished away by semantic games.
The Constitution does not outline every single precise exact detail. That's why we have this crazy thing called "jurisprudence."Where in the Constitution does it say that this is Constitutional?
The US Army was able to define "assault rifles" decades ago. I'm sure you can catch up to the US Army circa 1970.What about semiautomatic rifles that fire cartridges that include rimfire, pistol, intermediate or rifle-caliber cartridges?
No, a semantic game would only revolve around a bunch of meaningless words. The definition of an assault rifle is based on properties and functions.The entire definition (and subsequent morphing of the definitions) of "assault weapon" is a semantic game.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?