4 ms·
The Supreme Court's recent decision in *District of Columbia v Heller" which found that the 2nd Amendment does give a fundamental right to own firearms might no
by brown9-2 14y ago
The Supreme Court's recent decision in *District of Columbia v Heller" which found that the 2nd Amendment does give a fundamental right to own firearms might not be as expansive as you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#...
There is probably a lot of room in between what the courts would allow as far as limiting just what type of firearms one can keep in their home for lawful purposes (read: self-defense) and who can own them. A right to bear firearms does not necessarily mean a right to own fully-automatic assault rifles.
- philwelch 14y agoIndeed. Which is why fully automatic assault rifles have been illegal for the better part of a century. (They were outlawed during Prohibition due to the notoriety of the Thompson submachine gun.)
- beefman 14y agoTo clarify, fully automatic guns can be owned, at least in some States. Current federal law prohibits automatics manufactured after 1984 (IIRC) being sold to civilians. You can buy one manufactured before that. This restriction of course makes the available guns extremely expensive. There is also a demanding series of signoffs, from the ATF down to your local sheriff, that you need to get through. But it can be done.