question about assault rifles and the constitution
Is it not a violation of the constitution for a state to ban assault rifles?
Amendment II - ...Right of the people to keep and bear arms...
Amendment XIV - No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Would it be possible to sue certain states (eg. CT, CA, NY) for violating civil rights?
Re: question about assault rifles and the constitution
Actually you're overlooking the PA Constitution which says in Article I that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned. That said even the founding fathers would be shocked at the suggestion you need a rifle to spew out bullets. They would expect you to be a better shot. In the Civil War repeating rifles were not used because the generals thought that they would waste ammunition.
The case against assault rifles is simply you are replacing quantity for quality. When you do that you place innocent people at risk. Acceptable in war but not in peace time Pennsylvania. The state has a right to limit your use of deadly force. In this case so that only the intended recipient is at risk rather than everybody in the room.
{John}
Re: question about assault rifles and the constitution
Actually you're overlooking the PA Constitution which says in Article I that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned. That said even the founding fathers would be shocked at the suggestion you need a rifle to spew out bullets. They would expect you to be a better shot. In the Civil War repeating rifles were not used because the generals thought that they would waste ammunition.
The case against assault rifles is simply you are replacing quantity for quality. When you do that you place innocent people at risk. Acceptable in war but not in peace time Pennsylvania. The state has a right to limit your use of deadly force. In this case so that only the intended recipient is at risk rather than everybody in the room.
{John}
Re: question about assault rifles and the constitution
Actually you're overlooking the PA Constitution which says in Article I that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned. That said even the founding fathers would be shocked at the suggestion you need a rifle to spew out bullets. They would expect you to be a better shot. In the Civil War repeating rifles were not used because the generals thought that they would waste ammunition.
The case against assault rifles is simply you are replacing quantity for quality. When you do that you place innocent people at risk. Acceptable in war but not in peace time Pennsylvania. The state has a right to limit your use of deadly force. In this case so that only the intended recipient is at risk rather than everybody in the room.
{John}
