Defensive Carry banner

NY: Time To Fight!

3K views 50 replies 26 participants last post by  Ghost1958 
#1 ·
#44 ·
I am inclined to agree with HotGuns on the capacity issue. I believe that the debate on what constitutes and acceptable limit is academic at best. I would also add to that, to paraphrase an argument I saw on a different forum, that attempting to regulate the number of rounds can impact the function of the firearm. The example case used being the Glock 17 which has also been in production for three decades, making it very much in common use. In fact, to attempt to regulate this to 10 rounds is to invalidate several technological innovations of the manufacturer for the specific purpose of increasing its capacity in response to military specifications. The reason that this particular aspect is pertinent is that the restriction impacts the absolute function of the gun and hence, magazine restrictions are not separate from the 2A as some antis might try to claim and do fall under its protection.
 
#46 ·
The only body that can bring some balance and reason and uniformity to our national crazy quilt of gun laws is Congress
The same Congress that passed the socialist Obamacare and refuses to limit spending? That Congress?

Gee...that gives me a warm fuzzy...
 
#48 ·
THAT congress was voted out of office with extreme prejudice. A glimmer of hope for those of us with common sense.
 
#50 ·
Hopyard: What a horrible idea! Like it or not it is up to the SC, not congress to decide what "infringe" means. As inconvenient as the current patchwork of state gun laws are the states are the only entity that have any business making such laws.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
#51 ·
Its not up to the SC to decide what infringe means either. It means what it meant when it was written. Its not a magical spell that some wizards in SC need to cast correctly to get it work.

Here is a flash for ya. Like it lump it I dont give a hoot anymore. It means its not be changed regulated messed with or changed. End of story. Intellectualize, try to push the idea that SC or Congress or anybody else has any legal right to infringe on 2a all you want but it dont change it. They dont. They have got by with it because we let them get by with it a little at a time.

In the words of a not so famous I dont reckon author Ill echo again NO!!!!!!!!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top