It’s important to remember what they mean when it comes to reasonable regulation.
“It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun,”
– DC v. Heller Writ of Certiorari
if they’d allow me to carry a semiauto AK clone openly down every street of DC totally unmolested, sure, ban handguns. i’d much rather have a rifle or a shotgun handy, anyway. how come i’m getting this odd feeling they wouldn’t like me trying, though?
“modern handgun”? What does that mean? Does that mean I can own a Navy Revolver but not a Glock? Are 1911’s “modern”?
It’s not about the description of guns. It’s about the definition of “reasonable”. There is no reasonable way to infringe that which “shall not be infringed.” End of reasonable argument.
You have to remember that spending much time in DC puts you under the influence of the reality distortion field that seems centered under the Capitol dome.
In their world the Constitution means only what they think it means, so where’s the problem with ignoring the plain language?
You may be amused to know that the Arkansas Supreme Court uphold a ban on carrying handguns except for the “Army or Navy model,” since they had decided that militia weapons were constitutionally protected, but cheap handguns that certain…dark-skinned sorts might use against the Klan were not okay. See Dabbs v. State (Ark. 1882).
eytalfjhi oznh zrqcugjy aderxoq yqkgio dakz nquk