Can guns be controlled asymmetrically?How does modern Wall St. work in NYS gambling laws?Can a young US Vice President follow in the line of succession?How can felons be denied Constitutional rights?How long can the Senate hold up nominations?Can I waive my constitutional rights?Can Obama pardon Clinton?Can presidential electors be challenged for performing “strictly a ceremonial function”?Can a US President give police a “kill order”?Can U.S. states form or join new unions?Can Congress dissolve the other branches?
Multi tool use
Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?
What do Xenomorphs eat in the Alien series?
How to simplify this time periods definition interface?
Happy pi day, everyone!
AG Cluster db upgrade by vendor
Employee lack of ownership
Is a party consisting of only a bard, a cleric, and a warlock functional long-term?
What approach do we need to follow for projects without a test environment?
Is it normal that my co-workers at a fitness company criticize my food choices?
newcommand: Combine (optional) star and optional parameter
How do I hide Chekhov's Gun?
What's causing this power spike in STM32 low power mode
Brexit - No Deal Rejection
Who is flying the vertibirds?
How to make healing in an exploration game interesting
Opacity of an object in 2.8
How to use deus ex machina safely?
Sailing the cryptic seas
How to read the value of this capacitor?
How to change two letters closest to a string and one letter immediately after a string using notepad++
Why doesn't using two cd commands in bash script execute the second command?
My adviser wants to be the first author
Are there other languages, besides English, where the indefinite (or definite) article varies based on sound?
Science-fiction short story where space navy wanted hospital ships and settlers had guns mounted everywhere
Can guns be controlled asymmetrically?
How does modern Wall St. work in NYS gambling laws?Can a young US Vice President follow in the line of succession?How can felons be denied Constitutional rights?How long can the Senate hold up nominations?Can I waive my constitutional rights?Can Obama pardon Clinton?Can presidential electors be challenged for performing “strictly a ceremonial function”?Can a US President give police a “kill order”?Can U.S. states form or join new unions?Can Congress dissolve the other branches?
The Second Amendment is oft quoted as the reason that guns cannot be completely removed from American society, at least not without some sort of further amendment to the US Constitution. But what about attacking the problem in another way? There is no right reserved to the people in the US Constitution that prevents gunpowder, bullets, or other projectiles from being totally regulated. In other words, people can buy all of the guns they want, but possession of any form of ammunition for the guns could be made totally illegal or regulated as a state sees fit (barring federal legislation). Would this hold up in court? Has any state attempted to do this beyond limiting the amounts that can be purchased in a given period?
constitutional-law us-constitution second-amendment
asked Feb 5 at 20:45
Brian McMahonBrian McMahon
161
add a comment |
The Second Amendment is oft quoted as the reason that guns cannot be completely removed from American society, at least not without some sort of further amendment to the US Constitution. But what about attacking the problem in another way? There is no right reserved to the people in the US Constitution that prevents gunpowder, bullets, or other projectiles from being totally regulated. In other words, people can buy all of the guns they want, but possession of any form of ammunition for the guns could be made totally illegal or regulated as a state sees fit (barring federal legislation). Would this hold up in court? Has any state attempted to do this beyond limiting the amounts that can be purchased in a given period?
constitutional-law us-constitution second-amendment
asked Feb 5 at 20:45
Brian McMahonBrian McMahon
161
Why do you think that this would be any more popular (or likely to succeed) than simply banning (or further restricting) the guns themselves?
– brhans
Feb 5 at 20:48
I don't think it has a prayer of being popular, except among some of the more radical anti-gun activists and that wasn't the intent of the question anyway. The intent is to ask why a different route around the legal issue isn't tried. .
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
But that's precisely my point. It doesn't matter what creative methods you dream up to enact gun control - you'll need to have politicians propose bills and/or constitutional amendments, and that'll never happen because those politicians will want to be re-elected next term. Until a significant majority of the voting public want gun control it's not going to happen.
– brhans
Feb 5 at 22:27
add a comment |
The Second Amendment is oft quoted as the reason that guns cannot be completely removed from American society, at least not without some sort of further amendment to the US Constitution. But what about attacking the problem in another way? There is no right reserved to the people in the US Constitution that prevents gunpowder, bullets, or other projectiles from being totally regulated. In other words, people can buy all of the guns they want, but possession of any form of ammunition for the guns could be made totally illegal or regulated as a state sees fit (barring federal legislation). Would this hold up in court? Has any state attempted to do this beyond limiting the amounts that can be purchased in a given period?
constitutional-law us-constitution second-amendment
asked Feb 5 at 20:45
Brian McMahonBrian McMahon
161
The Second Amendment is oft quoted as the reason that guns cannot be completely removed from American society, at least not without some sort of further amendment to the US Constitution. But what about attacking the problem in another way? There is no right reserved to the people in the US Constitution that prevents gunpowder, bullets, or other projectiles from being totally regulated. In other words, people can buy all of the guns they want, but possession of any form of ammunition for the guns could be made totally illegal or regulated as a state sees fit (barring federal legislation). Would this hold up in court? Has any state attempted to do this beyond limiting the amounts that can be purchased in a given period?
constitutional-law us-constitution second-amendment
constitutional-law us-constitution second-amendment
asked Feb 5 at 20:45
Brian McMahonBrian McMahon
161
asked Feb 5 at 20:45
Brian McMahonBrian McMahon
161
asked Feb 5 at 20:45
Brian McMahonBrian McMahon
161
asked Feb 5 at 20:45
Brian McMahonBrian McMahon
161
asked Feb 5 at 20:45
Brian McMahonBrian McMahon
161
161
Why do you think that this would be any more popular (or likely to succeed) than simply banning (or further restricting) the guns themselves?
– brhans
Feb 5 at 20:48
I don't think it has a prayer of being popular, except among some of the more radical anti-gun activists and that wasn't the intent of the question anyway. The intent is to ask why a different route around the legal issue isn't tried. .
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
But that's precisely my point. It doesn't matter what creative methods you dream up to enact gun control - you'll need to have politicians propose bills and/or constitutional amendments, and that'll never happen because those politicians will want to be re-elected next term. Until a significant majority of the voting public want gun control it's not going to happen.
– brhans
Feb 5 at 22:27
add a comment |
Why do you think that this would be any more popular (or likely to succeed) than simply banning (or further restricting) the guns themselves?
– brhans
Feb 5 at 20:48
I don't think it has a prayer of being popular, except among some of the more radical anti-gun activists and that wasn't the intent of the question anyway. The intent is to ask why a different route around the legal issue isn't tried. .
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
But that's precisely my point. It doesn't matter what creative methods you dream up to enact gun control - you'll need to have politicians propose bills and/or constitutional amendments, and that'll never happen because those politicians will want to be re-elected next term. Until a significant majority of the voting public want gun control it's not going to happen.
– brhans
Feb 5 at 22:27
Why do you think that this would be any more popular (or likely to succeed) than simply banning (or further restricting) the guns themselves?
– brhans
Feb 5 at 20:48
Why do you think that this would be any more popular (or likely to succeed) than simply banning (or further restricting) the guns themselves?
– brhans
Feb 5 at 20:48
I don't think it has a prayer of being popular, except among some of the more radical anti-gun activists and that wasn't the intent of the question anyway. The intent is to ask why a different route around the legal issue isn't tried. .
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
I don't think it has a prayer of being popular, except among some of the more radical anti-gun activists and that wasn't the intent of the question anyway. The intent is to ask why a different route around the legal issue isn't tried. .
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
But that's precisely my point. It doesn't matter what creative methods you dream up to enact gun control - you'll need to have politicians propose bills and/or constitutional amendments, and that'll never happen because those politicians will want to be re-elected next term. Until a significant majority of the voting public want gun control it's not going to happen.
– brhans
Feb 5 at 22:27
But that's precisely my point. It doesn't matter what creative methods you dream up to enact gun control - you'll need to have politicians propose bills and/or constitutional amendments, and that'll never happen because those politicians will want to be re-elected next term. Until a significant majority of the voting public want gun control it's not going to happen.
– brhans
Feb 5 at 22:27
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The problem with the proposal is that the Second Amendment doesn't specifically protect the right to bear guns – the word it uses is "arms". Restricting sale of bullets or gunpowder is just as much a restriction on the right to bear arms as restricting sale of guns. Likewise, freedom of the press doesn't refer to just the freedom to use a wine press for printing purposes, it also encompasses the purchase of ink, paper, type and drying racks.
answered Feb 5 at 21:55
user6726user6726
60.8k455105
2
I hadn't considered that ammunition would fall under the definition of arms, I guess because there is such focus on guns specifically.
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
add a comment |
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the US Supreme Court held that "[District of Columbia's] ban on handgun possession in the home" and "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" violate the Second Amendment. This holding was later applied to states in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). I presume that firearms would not be lawfully operable without lawful possession of ammunition.
answered 4 mins ago
xuhdevxuhdev
330414
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36903%2fcan-guns-be-controlled-asymmetrically%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The problem with the proposal is that the Second Amendment doesn't specifically protect the right to bear guns – the word it uses is "arms". Restricting sale of bullets or gunpowder is just as much a restriction on the right to bear arms as restricting sale of guns. Likewise, freedom of the press doesn't refer to just the freedom to use a wine press for printing purposes, it also encompasses the purchase of ink, paper, type and drying racks.
answered Feb 5 at 21:55
user6726user6726
60.8k455105
2
I hadn't considered that ammunition would fall under the definition of arms, I guess because there is such focus on guns specifically.
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
add a comment |
The problem with the proposal is that the Second Amendment doesn't specifically protect the right to bear guns – the word it uses is "arms". Restricting sale of bullets or gunpowder is just as much a restriction on the right to bear arms as restricting sale of guns. Likewise, freedom of the press doesn't refer to just the freedom to use a wine press for printing purposes, it also encompasses the purchase of ink, paper, type and drying racks.
answered Feb 5 at 21:55
user6726user6726
60.8k455105
2
I hadn't considered that ammunition would fall under the definition of arms, I guess because there is such focus on guns specifically.
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
add a comment |
The problem with the proposal is that the Second Amendment doesn't specifically protect the right to bear guns – the word it uses is "arms". Restricting sale of bullets or gunpowder is just as much a restriction on the right to bear arms as restricting sale of guns. Likewise, freedom of the press doesn't refer to just the freedom to use a wine press for printing purposes, it also encompasses the purchase of ink, paper, type and drying racks.
answered Feb 5 at 21:55
user6726user6726
60.8k455105
The problem with the proposal is that the Second Amendment doesn't specifically protect the right to bear guns – the word it uses is "arms". Restricting sale of bullets or gunpowder is just as much a restriction on the right to bear arms as restricting sale of guns. Likewise, freedom of the press doesn't refer to just the freedom to use a wine press for printing purposes, it also encompasses the purchase of ink, paper, type and drying racks.
answered Feb 5 at 21:55
user6726user6726
60.8k455105
answered Feb 5 at 21:55
user6726user6726
60.8k455105
answered Feb 5 at 21:55
user6726user6726
60.8k455105
answered Feb 5 at 21:55
user6726user6726
60.8k455105
60.8k455105
2
I hadn't considered that ammunition would fall under the definition of arms, I guess because there is such focus on guns specifically.
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
add a comment |
2
I hadn't considered that ammunition would fall under the definition of arms, I guess because there is such focus on guns specifically.
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
2
2
I hadn't considered that ammunition would fall under the definition of arms, I guess because there is such focus on guns specifically.
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
I hadn't considered that ammunition would fall under the definition of arms, I guess because there is such focus on guns specifically.
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
add a comment |
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the US Supreme Court held that "[District of Columbia's] ban on handgun possession in the home" and "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" violate the Second Amendment. This holding was later applied to states in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). I presume that firearms would not be lawfully operable without lawful possession of ammunition.
answered 4 mins ago
xuhdevxuhdev
330414
add a comment |
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the US Supreme Court held that "[District of Columbia's] ban on handgun possession in the home" and "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" violate the Second Amendment. This holding was later applied to states in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). I presume that firearms would not be lawfully operable without lawful possession of ammunition.
answered 4 mins ago
xuhdevxuhdev
330414
add a comment |
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the US Supreme Court held that "[District of Columbia's] ban on handgun possession in the home" and "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" violate the Second Amendment. This holding was later applied to states in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). I presume that firearms would not be lawfully operable without lawful possession of ammunition.
answered 4 mins ago
xuhdevxuhdev
330414
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the US Supreme Court held that "[District of Columbia's] ban on handgun possession in the home" and "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" violate the Second Amendment. This holding was later applied to states in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). I presume that firearms would not be lawfully operable without lawful possession of ammunition.
answered 4 mins ago
xuhdevxuhdev
330414
answered 4 mins ago
xuhdevxuhdev
330414
answered 4 mins ago
xuhdevxuhdev
330414
answered 4 mins ago
xuhdevxuhdev
330414
330414
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36903%2fcan-guns-be-controlled-asymmetrically%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Ufs,UffZa1vSkSBfQwJQ,xeB
Why do you think that this would be any more popular (or likely to succeed) than simply banning (or further restricting) the guns themselves?
– brhans
Feb 5 at 20:48
I don't think it has a prayer of being popular, except among some of the more radical anti-gun activists and that wasn't the intent of the question anyway. The intent is to ask why a different route around the legal issue isn't tried. .
– Brian McMahon
Feb 5 at 22:16
But that's precisely my point. It doesn't matter what creative methods you dream up to enact gun control - you'll need to have politicians propose bills and/or constitutional amendments, and that'll never happen because those politicians will want to be re-elected next term. Until a significant majority of the voting public want gun control it's not going to happen.
– brhans
Feb 5 at 22:27