And to make it as difficult as possible to exercise that right, so fewer and fewer people bother to try.
Sure I do. I could go to a local gun shop right now and have one home for a reasonable price within an hour. I've already got more 30 rounders than I can count, and if push ever came to shove, they're really nothing more than a few pieces of injection molded plastic and a spring, easy peasy to make at home. Or would you criminalize injection molded plastics and/or springs?
You've already destroyed your own argument. You see, in the example you pointed out, such a scheme was ALREADY ILLEGAL. Do you think yet another law making it, for lack of a better term, "more illegal", is going to make a bit of difference? Exactly how many more laws making the same actions illegal that are already illegal do you think will suffice?
Great example of how more strict laws only limit the freedoms of people who abide by the law. New Jersey apparently doesn't care about their citizens. You don't need a straw purchase scheme of you didn't have ridiculous laws. This is a problem strictly created by gun control laws.
Buy one gun a year Vote one time a year Attend church one time a year Comment on the net one time a year Read a newspaper one time a year Peaceably assemble one time a year Be free from searches and seizures one time a year Confront witnesses against you one time a year Be exempt from cruel and unusual punishments one time a year..........
That's an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. You would have to repeal the Second Amendment in order for this to become a nationwide mandate.
well technically you don't have the right to anything that's a positive right and rights are negative by nature. What right say is you have a freedom from something. The Second Amendment says I have a freedom from Draconian government laws that only exist to make it harder to exercise my rights. Arbitrarily picking a number and saying that's too much is Draconian.
A gun is a tool. A more appropriate analogy is limiting people to buying one computer a month so that they could post on this forum. People could still keep and bear arms despite being limited to buying one handgun a month. I didn't get a straight answer when I asked what problems this law would cause gun owners. It seems this law has the potential to prevent much more harm than it would cause.
A Virginia judge has found the law to be constitutional. Virginia's attorney general agrees. " 'The government has a substantial interest in limiting gun trafficking,' said Goochland County Judge Timothy Sanner from the bench, just under a week before the law goes live. Sanner pointed to the state’s history as a depot for guns used in crime as among the reasons for his decision. "Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring praised the outcome from the steps of the courthouse. 'These laws are legal, constitutional and they’re important,' he said. 'We have seen too much gun violence in communities across the state and the problem of gun trafficking is real.' " https://www.courthousenews.com/judg...-attempt-to-block-states-one-gun-a-month-law/
If one a month is Constitutional, is one per year? Is one per lifetime? Why does an arbitrarily picked time period make it Constitutional?
Irrelevant that a gun is a tool. A gun is also an arm and arms are Constitutionally guaranteed. While Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech are also guaranteed, laptops are not. Your question as to what problems this would cause gun owners is also irrelevant. The question should be "What problems would this law cause gun buyers?. And again irrelevant if this law causes no harm as it is unconstitutional. As to the laws potential to prevent harm, I'm not seeing it. There are already many laws on the books which are supposed to do the same things this new law is touted to do. No law does any good if not enforced.
This is factually correct. Factually incorrect. A more appropriate analogy would be an individual being limited to visiting only one website per month. The straight answer is that government does not possess the legal authority to limit the number of times an individual may legally exercise their constitutional rights.
Meaningless and irrelevant. What one may believe still does not change the fact that what is unconstitutional, is unconstitutional. How does the proposal meet the standard of strict scrutiny? Explain such. How is it the least restrictive approach possible of accomplishing a compelling government interest?
...but what if a person needs two guns? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/peter-strzoks-daughter.576767/ Thanks @FatBack!
I have a gun to protect my family. I want additional guns because I like guns. I should not be limited on how many guns I can buy any more than I am limited on how many golf clubs I can buy.
If you are referring to my post, I don't think you see my point at all. If you can afford a tank and fighter jet and are a law abiding citizen I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to have them. Interesting note, I believe it is legal in the us for private citizens to own tanks and fighter jets but not bump stocks.
You dont "need" an SUV does mean you are OK with being dictated to? There are legit reasons a plenty.
The legal exercising of constitutional rights is not subject to such limitations. Unlike the nation of China, the government of the united states has absolutely no legal authority to dictate how many times a private individual may legally exercise their constitutional rights in a given period of time, before cutting them off for the rest of the year due to the amount of exercising being considered excessive.
It's not a limit on the number of times a right can be exercised. A right can be exercised multiple times with only one tool.
