3 ms·
I was under the impression that certain types of ammunition are able to be banned without any constitutional issues arising [1]. If you wanted to be really cle
by danieltillett 11y ago
I was under the impression that certain types of ammunition are able to be banned without any constitutional issues arising [1].
If you wanted to be really clever you could still allow ammunition, but limit the materials the bullet could be made from or limit the powder load. Attacking ammunition has got to be a more workable strategy than trying to restrict gun ownership without consitutional change.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet
- krapp 11y agoSure, but I think a strategy like that only avoids constitutional issues because it's not a general attack on the efficacy of firearms. Anything that has the effect of making guns less effective en masse would probably run afoul of the Second Amendment.
- danieltillett 11y agoBanning armor-piecing bullets certainly makes firearms much less effective - after all this is why the law was brought in as it made guns too effective against the authorities (the infamous “cop killer bullets”). Why has this law [1] not fallen afoul of the second amendment? 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#a_17 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#a_17
- krapp 11y agoBecause all of the other kinds of bullets still kill people perfectly well, thank you, and that's all the Second Amendment requires.
- danieltillett 11y agoNot if the bullets come out of the barrel at less than 10 feet per second. Just make a law limiting the bullet’s velocity to below the skin piercing speed. You have your arms, but you can't do much with it beyond killing flies.
- krapp 11y agoAdmittedly, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but the Second Amendment was written at a time when the fledgling country wanted to ensure a distributed defense against potential threats like Spain and England, and Native American tribes. My naive reading of it leads me to believe that the part where the bullets can kill people is kind of non-negotiable.
- danieltillett 11y agoMy understanding is the second amendment has been “interpreted” quite a bit over the years - after all the original intent of the law was that people could own arms (i.e. military grade weapons), not just handguns and the like.
- cgriswald 11y agoI interpret the first amendment to mean we have a right to make sounds come out of our mouths. The content of those sounds, however, is not protected. Since there are an infinite number of combinations of sounds, banning political statements does not impact that right. You are still free to make infinite sounds. The amendment also does not cover the right to record that sound or to write thoughts down on paper. And while the amendment does preserve the right to petition the government for grievances, it does not specify what form that petition must take or for the government to act on such grievances. Therefore, a law which requires all such grievances to be voiced at lowest point of the Atlantic Ocean is constitutional as well.
- niij 11y agoThank you for this. This guy is either a supporter of Nanny States or has a massive lack of understanding of basic U.S. constitutional law.
- danieltillett 11y agoOr maybe he is asking a question.
- sb057 11y ago>Why has this law not fallen afoul of the second amendment? In many people's eyes, it has.
- danieltillett 11y agoWhen did the supreme court rule this law was unconstitutional?
- niij 11y agoHe said nothing about it being ruled unconstitutional. I assume what parent is trying to say is that the restriction on their 2nd amendment rights (which is what this law is-- a restriction of a right) is, in many people's opinion, contrary to the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment. Now, there is a difference between restricting of a right and a ban of a right, but it becomes a very fine line.
- danieltillett 11y agoThere are already a large number of restrictions on the ownership of arms. Try to go and buy any true arms (military grade weapons) and see how far you get. The intended purpose of the second amendment was gutted long ago. My question is why have the anti-gun lobby not gone after ammunition. So far I have not had one good response answering this question.
- niij 11y agoBecause without ammunition there are no guns, without guns there is no second amendment. If you believe restricting "true arms" has been effective, why do you think it is necessary to restrict ammunition?
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoI make my own. Its pretty easy. And cheap. Which is amazing, considering that mass production should have put it at a price point that can't be beat.