Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by snerd, Dec 20, 2012.
There's a big difference between the court deciding that Illinois law is too restrictive (for example) and doing the same with an "assault weapon" ban.
I haven't heard anything in Feinstein's AWB that could possibly be ruled unconstitutional with the possible exception of being unable to transfer magazines.
Yeah, she was crowing about how her first AWB was never challenged. This one will attempt to go further though. I wonder if her "prospective ownership" concept would survive a court challenge if it makes it through Congress. I'm no attorney but that sure doesn't sound like "equal protection under the law".
Obama has four years of waiting for one conservative to die or get off the bench for a chance to fix that. One of the reasons this election was so important.
It isand would be unconstitutional if they applied the definition of shall not be infringed! Cause they are infringing on all our rights to own and posses any type firearm we wish to own!
They are restricting the type and manner in which we use those firearms! They are going to make a legal weapon -illegal to have and use! The 2nd forbids the Feds from making any law that infringe upon the right!