Re: question about assault rifles and the constitution

The right to bear arms -- like all other rights -- has some limits. It's not yet clear what those limits are, since the Supreme Court only announced this year that such a right actually exists. (It had previously been unclear whether such a right belonged to individuals or to "the people" as a group.)

Few would claim that the Second Amendment means individuals are allowed to own, say, nuclear or biological weapons. There is a line somewhere between what the government can ban and what it can't, and those weapons would fall on the wrong side of the line. Whether assault rifles are also on that side of the line remains to be seen. Future court decisions would answer the question.

You might be able to bring a lawsuit to force the courts to decide the issue, but you could only sue a state in which you would actually have such a weapon. You could sue the state where you live, for example, or perhaps a state where you would want to hunt with such a weapon. (Whether they are appropriate for hunting is beyond my expertise.) You could not simply sue whatever state had a law you disagreed with.

Re: question about assault rifles and the constitution

Second Amendment: "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Read the WHOLE thing, not just the part you like. Regulation is specifically authorized in the amendment.

Re: question about assault rifles and the constitution

Actually you're overlooking the PA Constitution which says in Article I that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned. That said even the founding fathers would be shocked at the suggestion you need a rifle to spew out bullets. They would expect you to be a better shot. In the Civil War repeating rifles were not used because the generals thought that they would waste ammunition.

The case against assault rifles is simply you are replacing quantity for quality. When you do that you place innocent people at risk. Acceptable in war but not in peace time Pennsylvania. The state has a right to limit your use of deadly force. In this case so that only the intended recipient is at risk rather than everybody in the room.

{John}