Except for the fact such is not how things work in the united states. Part of the second amendment, and its legal exercising, pertains to the ability to purchase a firearm whenever an individual may wish, however often an individual may wish. The second amendment does not merely cover ownership or use, or also covers acquisition.
A gun is a tool. Perhaps they should look at what is causing the use of a gun in a crime. If a person is inclined to commit a crime with a gun, chances are, they are only going to use one gun (at a time). If a criminal needs a gun, they will either get it through back channels, or steal it themselves. Do they limit their stealing to once a month? Nope, they'll hit as many houses as they can, taking whatever guns are there, because, well, they're criminals....
Firearms trafficking is already illegal and punishable, without politicians going out of their way to prevent the identification, arrest, and prosecution of firearm traffickers. These firearm-related restrictions and others like them, serve to prevent the ATF and FBI from identifying those who are responsible for such acts.
And even when such the case, it was still quite low in terms of the number of firearms successfully trafficked into other states.
There no demonstrable compelling state interest served by limiting the law abiding to one purchase per month. The limit is arbitrary, capricious, and would unquestionably violate the constitution if it were laid upon any other right.
Is there any limit or any type of weapon that would be unacceptable to you? Should one be allowed to own a tank or an rpg for example?
So make murder illegal. People are still going to do it with guns no matter how illegal you make them. so the only point and making them illegal is to take them away from people who would never commit murder with them that's the only people you're going to hurt with a law. If you're willing to murder somebody, you probably don't care that it's illegal to have a gun.
Making a straw purchase in Virginia and then transporting it to NJ was. Double illegal already!! How many more???
Since 9/11 there have been many changes. It's no longer legal to board a plane with a knife that has a blade of less than four inches. Pilots are required to keep cockpit doors locked and shut. Your argument against such regulations would probably be that hijacking a plane was already illegal. But in the real world sometimes new laws are passed because the current ones aren't working well enough.
The Second Amendment says nothing about being able to buy guns. Can the people exercise their right to keep and bear arms (not buy guns) if each person is limited to buying one handgun a month? Yes they can. So this law is not unconstitutional. I'm not sure you'd need even one handgun to serve in a well regulated militia. Soldiers are more likely to have rifles.
Are you suggesting there's no such thing as a gun crime in Australia? If there is criminals aren't following the gun laws.
Okay so if you lived in a state where you can't buy more than one gun from an FFL dealer and you buy two or three from someone who isn't, seems the law is strictly punitive to FFL dealers. The only reason for that is to infringe on people's rights.
Guns (arms) are legal, they are Constitutionally guaranteed, but because some people choose to use them for illegal purposes you feel it is acceptable to limit how many I can buy at one time. That is crazy; just arrest the criminals don't punish me. Just remember, handguns were no more designed for criminal activity than golf clubs were designed to commit murder. Handguns are uniquely suited for many purposes. I have several for many different purposes none of which are criminal activity.
Meaningless and irrelevant. No degree of restriction will ever be enough if they are simply not enforced by those who are tasked with such. The only thing serving to stop passengers from actually bringing large knives onto planes is the active enforcement of airport security officers at designated screening areas, and even then their success rate is mediocre at best because many are simply not paying attention to doing their job. Calling for more useless restrictions that can just as easily be ignored, is hardly the logical course of action to be engaging in.
And the fourth amendment says nothing about being able to have an abortion performed. Does government possess the legal authority to dictate how often a private individual may legally exercise their constitutional rights in a given period of time? Does such apply to all constitutional rights equally, or only some of them? Can government dictate that an individual may legally exercise one constitutional right, but only if they agree to not exercise their other constitutional rights at the same time because the number of exercises is being considered excessive? The district of columbia alleged the same thing in claiming their prohibition on handguns was constitutional because they allowed residents to own other types of firearms. It did not work out for them in a court of law. The militia service argument has been rendered dead and moot by the united state supreme court, three separate times now. It is not coming back, no matter how much of an effort is made at doing such.
Most countries in the Middle East have very lax gun laws. Note how weddings are often accompanied by automatic weapon celebratory gunfire. Yet these nations have shockingly low gun homicide rates. Strict gun laws are not directly proportional to lower gun violence. Looking at Chicago, Los Angeles, DC and other US cities with strict gun laws this is apparent.
One is already allowed to own both of those and more. One can purchase a fighter jet if so inclined, provided you can afford it and the upkeep(expensive, very very expensive). Want a working cannon? Yup. Just fill out the form, pay your $200 tax and you have a working cannon. Each round would also include a form and a $200 tax. As for the tank, it’s expensive to buy, but not as much to maintain as a fighter jet is though. If you got a new one, you’d have to outfit it with older machine guns(a form and a $200 tax plus the cost of one(expensive) and you’re good there), but another $200 tax will allow you to keep the working barrel. Each round also has $200 tax. RPG’s aren’t too expensive, but each round requires the $200 tax, plus the cost of the round. Those taxes also come with a form you have to fill out. For every round. Just like with the cannon. TL/DR It’s allowed but it’s not cheap.
the supreme court has not ruled on this and if it actually follows Heller and McDonald, the law must be struck down. The second amendment is a negative restriction on the government (state as well as federal) and we know that the government has no power to ban those without disqualifying features (convictions, fugitives, dishonorable discharges etc) from buying pistols. This law, however, suddenly empowers the state government to ban a constitutionally protected activity merely because a citizen has engaged a legally proper and constitutionally protected activity in the past thirty days. Please explain how acting lawfully now empowers the state of Virginia to curtail constitutional rights.
