Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Eaker

I see they used the old "you don't need an assault weapon for hunting" line when they passed the stupid ban.

I haven't hunted for years. I suppose all that time I spent being cold and wet in the woods while I was in the army cooled my ardor for hunting. I do, however, collect historic military firearms. Most of my collection would no doubt fall into the "assault weapon" category as defined by the city council of Columbus. Does this ban mean that anyone who has a collection of historic military firearms in Columbus is now a criminal?

I would venture to guess that this ban violates the Second Amendment rights of a number of residents of Columbus. Seems like a good lawyer could take the city to court and get the ban overturned.

IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS, IT'S ABOUT FREEDOM!


25 posted on 07/13/2005 8:12:37 AM PDT by billnaz (What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: billnaz
What you (they want you to think) fail to understand is, wail the 2nd keeps the Fed gov from taking your rights, the local city council can, just ask them. ( the 2nd isn't in their bylaws or what ever it is they govern by.
47 posted on 07/14/2005 8:44:50 AM PDT by OldSgt. (USMC, Nam Vet, HMM-165)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson