This will once again ONLY affect law-abiding citizens who are not the problem. It will also ban something that is NOT a problem to begin with. Typical.
Meh. I'll stamp some serials on my 80%'s. No problem.
Yeap.
Serial Number 1
Serial Number 1
Serial Number 1
Serial Number 1
Who said they had to be different.
I claim serial number 4NO-K8.
Yeap.
Serial Number 1
Serial Number 1
Serial Number 1
Serial Number 1
Who said they had to be different.
I know law makers pass laws all of the time that are not constitutional and will ultimately be adjudicated in court-- but what do you think about the constitutionality of a law that would ban home built firearms or require you to apply serial numbers to them built before the date of a new law?
Realistically, even an outright ban on homebuilt firearms wouldn't likely be found unconstitutional. A requirement for serial #s, or licensing of home builders, even less likely to be overturned.
Except for that pesky little word in the second amendment:
Infringe: 1) to actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.); 2) act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on
I'd say that banning or otherwise regulating both fall squarely under definition #2, wouldn't you? A ban is a limit, and regulation is encroaching.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Via Heller
Miller was wrong anyway. The gun Miller had was in common use. Since Miller was not represented, there was only one side of the story told.I did not realize Heller reaffirmed Miller. I need to go back and reread Heller.
who says it has to be numbers? How about BLOWME