From the article: "By rejecting this case, the Supreme Court sided with a community that has taken action to protect itself from the type of violence we’ve seen in San Bernardino, on college campuses and in movie theaters."
Let's see... what do those places have in common... Oh yeah, they're all either GFZ's or have severely restrictive gun laws. So basically nothing has been learned, and nothing has changed.
Not to mention the well known fact that Chicago's problem is all about assault weapons.
It does appear that it is becoming increasingly harder to challenge a governments authority to regulate and or ban certain types of firearms through the courts on a constitutional basis. Disturbing trend.
It's almost like you can have your 2nd Amend rights but the government has the authority to decide what arms you can keep and where you can bear them. I'm not liking this at all.
It does appear that it is becoming increasingly harder to challenge a governments authority to regulate and or ban certain types of firearms through the courts on a constitutional basis. Disturbing trend.
It's almost like you can have your 2nd Amend rights but the government has the authority to decide what arms you can keep and where you can bear them. I'm not liking this at all.
Advocates of bans on military-style weapons had pointed to mass shootings before this year and argued that rapid-fire rifles and handguns posed a special danger to public safety.
what are "rapid fire rifles and handguns"?
in my mind, that would be ANY gun you can shoot more than one round quickly.