Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules
#9
(02-24-2017, 11:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But it's a constitutional amendment so do the state legislatures have that right?

Yes. Unless the courts say otherwise or there is a superseding federal law, the states have that ability to place restrictions. As of 2008, the courts have said that the 2nd affords citizens the right to private firearm ownership unconnected to military service. However, they have upheld limitations on the types of weapons and the ability to carry weapons outside of the home that states have put in place.

That being said, the case law is a little interesting on this. I was mistaken on the ruling of individual right to own firearms, as that ruling actually occurred in 1886 from what I can tell, though the 2008 decision had a much larger impact. What I have also found is that previous case law would seem to indicate that the 2nd could apply to military style weapons. Expect this to hit SCOTUS, because case law could support this being overturned.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR





Messages In This Thread
RE: ‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules - Belsnickel - 02-24-2017, 11:47 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)