4 ms·
> Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them. I mean, how would it be different if we claimed that you can own a gun bu
by SeanLuke 5y ago
> Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them. I mean, how would it be different if we claimed that you can own a gun but not shoot it?
Do you have the right to shoot at someone's house? Do you have the right to fire in a crowded theater? Do you have the right to fire your weapon right next to someone's ear?
Just because you own a gun does mean your use of that gun cannot be restricted by law, indeed severely so. The only issue is to what degree your usage may be curtailed. This is not black and white.
- voakbasda 5y agoThe crimes that you listed are destruction of property, disturbing the peace, and intentionally causing bodily harm. Using a gun is incidental to the actual crime. The same arguments can be made about knives, baseball bats, or other things. Consequently, this is not a legitimate basis for restricting their availability or usage of guns themselves, any more than such potential crimes limit the use of those other objects. Of course, prosecutors love to double dip with charges, tacking on a weapons charge or two. These extra charges usually result in a far more severe sentence. Again, hard to see the legality of such practices, but this is the status quo that we have today.