Comment by ndriscoll
2 days ago
It might be quite reasonable, but it would also quite clearly require an amendment to do in the US, which is what you originally replied to.
2 days ago
It might be quite reasonable, but it would also quite clearly require an amendment to do in the US, which is what you originally replied to.
Grenades a clear requirement for a modern infantry are also banned, thus eliminating any argument that a modern standards of military efficiency apply.
Banding heavy machine guns yet another invention after the constitution was written didn’t, so there’s clear present this wouldn’t either.
What makes you believe that grenades are banned in US? They are heavily taxed, yes - $200 per grenade - but they aren't banned on the federal level, and there are people who legally own such things.
“Possessing a live grenade is illegal.” https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-def...
Obviously there’s a bunch of exceptions, including as you point out the federal option of going through a background check and paying 200$/grenade. But that’s only at the federal level it doesn’t necessarily meet state requirements.
The rules on those background checks are as capricious as banning people who were dishonorably discharged from the military.
1 reply →
Except "it was made after the constitution was written" is a standard you've made up -- there is existing case law from SCOTUS that 2A protects guns "in common use"
Actually things that are new after the constitution was written is regularly brought up before the court it’s a very common argument. The thing was written a long time ago, everyone involved in the process acknowledges that fact. The degree to which papers applies to electronic data should be familiar to you.
Supreme court rulings are arbitrary as they regularly reverse or update standards, sometimes multiple times.
5 replies →