can you cite a book where there is evidence that the founders intended the federal government to have the power to dictate what sort of arms private citizens could not own?
Thank you for confirming you have no rational or factual basis for your claim. Common sense dictates the recognition of the fact the Constitution, necessarily and intentionally, takes certain policy choices off the table. If you aren't willing to accept this, you aren't interested in common sense.
gun rights advocates would prohibit it...in an earlier thread i suggested that gun owners will have to get more proactively involved in the whole secenario to protect what they have now, of course this was rejected by RW
it's already a felony under 18 USC 922 g for a felon (criminal) or someone under felony indictment or a fugitive from justice, to possess a firearm.
i believe it falls within the overall health and welness/prosperity part which superceds the rest...i am not an active anti-gun advocate i just know history
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered. DC v Heller
You have no rational or factual basis for this claim... .... AND the USSC has ruled the opposite. Common sense dictates the recognition of the fact the Constitution, necessarily and intentionally, takes certain policy choices off the table. If you aren't willing to accept this, you aren't interested in common sense.
It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about.There is no auto sear that can be fitted to a 1911. None, zilch. Any mokying with a 1911,s sear which I gurantee you are completely ignorant, could have the potential to render one unsafe to handle. You are arguing from complete ignorance having no credibility on semi automatics... or firearms in General.
SCOTUS has already determined that. The government doesn't even have a Constitutional obligation to protect anyone.
what complete fiction. why is it that none of the gun banning lawyers like Schumer, cited this novel jurisdictional foundation? just give it up-the FDR scumbags pretended the commerce clause was a proper end around both the tenth and the second amendment
Enforcement comes after the fact. The laws against "autosears" do not prevent anyone from making/creating/installing/using such things.
