Is it in the Bill of Rights or not?
The state’s rationale is, to use a word occasionally employed in such matters, specious. To a wild degree.
Idiots!
They are absolutely arms. Scary arms they want to ban, maybe, but still arms in the legal definition of things that are carried, aimed, fired and go boom!
Oxford dictionary:
arms
[ärmz]
noun
weapons and ammunition; armaments:
"arms exports" · "they were subjugated by force of arms"
Similar:
weaponry
firearms
guns
ordnance
cannon
artillery
(I use vernacular for efficiency. Split hairs later, please.)
If an “Ar-15” isn’t a GUN, just what IS it?
I’m in juxtaposition with regards to a high capacity ammunition magazine ban “in a related situation” in California, where the statwide ban is currently under the court’s review in CA... Duncan v. Bonta is being decided en banc by the CA Supreme Court. I’m not Duncan nor Bonta, just an interested third party needing to retrieve some things from a particular municipal police department.
In related news, Washington State’s Supreme Court just ruled against high capacity ammunition magazine possession by the citizens.
Next step, completely ignoring SCOTUS.
“.....shall not be infringed...”
there is no other particular kind of personal property that is Constitutionally protected
and
there is no other Constitutionally-recognized individual liberty that is so emphatically protected as “shall not be infringed”
Need reaffirmation of Bill of Rights for all citizens in all states. No abborgation upon crossing state lines.
“2A Groups Make Final Pitch for SCOTUS to Address Illinois ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban”
“San Antonio Police Sgt. Says Defensive Gun Uses are Becoming More Common”
Well, we still will have original assault weapons: ROCKS.
Colorado is considering an assault weapons ban, insurance for gun owners, etc.
Fascinating. Then perhaps we can argue that slander from the House floor is not speech and debate as intended by the founders.
BTT