Skip to comments.
Are 'Smart Gun' Laws Constitutional?
RealClearPolicy's The Mark Up ^
| February 20, 2014
| Robert VerBruggen
Posted on 02/22/2014 7:21:09 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
To: 2ndDivisionVet
There has been a model out for a long time which requires the shooter to have a special ring before it will fire.
I can’t recall the model but the whole idea is just plain a bad idea for many reasons.
2
posted on
02/22/2014 7:24:55 PM PST
by
yarddog
(Romans 8: verses 38 and 39. "For I am persuaded".)
To: yarddog
Now that I think about it, the gun which requires a ring to fire is a modification rather than an entire gun. Maybe just S&W revolvers but I am not sure.
3
posted on
02/22/2014 7:26:52 PM PST
by
yarddog
(Romans 8: verses 38 and 39. "For I am persuaded".)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Patently unconstitutional! What part of this language do they not understand:
" . . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"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."
4
posted on
02/22/2014 7:30:25 PM PST
by
ConorMacNessa
(HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 <center> <tab - St. Mlichael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
To: yarddog
“...requires the shooter to have a special ring...”
I wants my precious, I does.
5
posted on
02/22/2014 7:39:39 PM PST
by
beelzepug
(if any alphabets are watchin', I'll be coming home right after the meetin')
To: ConorMacNessa
But they don’t seem to know what the word ‘infringed’ means. Maybe they should ask an 8 year old child to look it up in the dictionary for them.
6
posted on
02/22/2014 7:41:55 PM PST
by
1_Of_We
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Any modification on only certain persons firing certain weapons is an infringement because a person cannot keep a weapon and bear it if he can`t fire it.
It might belong to his wife. During the Revolutionary War my ancestor`s wife and her son had weapons left in the house for protection when he went to Bunker Hill with his musket off the wall.
Of course it is unconstitutional because it RESTRICTS [infringes] THE USE and CONTROL [to keep = to control] OF A FIREARM>
7
posted on
02/22/2014 7:42:14 PM PST
by
bunkerhill7
("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Are “Smart Baseball Bats”Constitutional?
8
posted on
02/22/2014 7:47:38 PM PST
by
Vendome
(Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Criminals will have gun jammers. A POS solution to a non-existant problem.
9
posted on
02/22/2014 7:55:02 PM PST
by
VRWC For Truth
(Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
To: beelzepug
And one ring to rule them all.
10
posted on
02/22/2014 7:55:37 PM PST
by
yarddog
(Romans 8: verses 38 and 39. "For I am persuaded".)
To: Vendome
A 12 year old can make enough Molotov cocktails in a day to supply a battalion of insurgents for a campaign. Are they going to ban gasoline?
11
posted on
02/22/2014 7:55:51 PM PST
by
2ndDivisionVet
(I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
This is simply a gun tax that selectively denies the poor access to a fundamental, God-given and constitutionally-protected human right. If forced to pay extra for this destructive feature, I would then pay even more to disable the unwanted feature. The bottom line: “poor and minorities hardest hit” as is usual for leftist laws.
12
posted on
02/22/2014 7:59:49 PM PST
by
Pollster1
("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
It is a technical absurdity that will be used by the gun grabbers if possible. There is no need for this thing, and the means to disable it will appear almost as quickly as it does. The government is certain to possess those means, and professional criminals will soon develop them.
13
posted on
02/22/2014 8:03:14 PM PST
by
GenXteacher
(You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
To: VRWC For Truth
you damn well know COPS will have them!!!
14
posted on
02/22/2014 8:09:40 PM PST
by
Chode
(Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
To: 1_Of_We
The maggots who control the media would never let the common sense of an 8 year old child, let alone that of a responsible adult, enter into the discussion.
They would advance the highly "nuanced" opinion of some leftist apparatchik like John F'in Kerry, who wouldn't know a basic human right if one smacked him in the head.
"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."
15
posted on
02/22/2014 8:10:30 PM PST
by
ConorMacNessa
(HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 <center> <tab - St. Mlichael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Any gun law is a Declaration of War......
16
posted on
02/22/2014 8:14:08 PM PST
by
S.O.S121.500
(Had Enough Yet ? ........................ Enforce the Bill of Rights ......... It's the LAW !!!)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
17
posted on
02/22/2014 8:17:43 PM PST
by
Vendome
(Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
To: Chode
Oh the word criminals is loosely chosen here. The badged, political, military, and DemocRats and RINOs aka the power kooks.
18
posted on
02/22/2014 8:24:22 PM PST
by
VRWC For Truth
(Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
If they can prove smart guns work, they will ban non-smart guns.
19
posted on
02/22/2014 8:27:42 PM PST
by
depressed in 06
(America conceived in liberty, dies in slavery.)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Sounds like it about time for voters in every state which has the initiative process to place a vote before the public to require local and state police forces and state protection details to deploy only smart gun technology. There cannot be a reason for government officials to operate with out of date technology. The safety of the public and of the police force depends on it.
20
posted on
02/22/2014 8:28:40 PM PST
by
Sgt_Schultze
(A half-truth is a complete lie)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson