- Messages
- 2,538
- Reactions
- 632
Oh, here is another interview from Feinstein where she says the 2nd amendment does not cover certain weapons like the ones used in Sandy Hook.
Senator Feinstein discusses assault weapons legislation - YouTube
That's another interesting topic. How does Feinstein know what's covered and what's not ? It is basically based on the fact that
a) Federal Assault Weapons ban was allowed to exist for 10 years
b) California Assault Weapons ban is still active
c) A number of other states have similar to CA restrictions
At the same time if we were to perform a legal analysis, we can bring up Miller case. The only problem with this whole thing is in the very system of our laws - government can pass any laws they like, we (people) then have to challenge them in court and get them overturned.
(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
Anybody (Feinstein maybe?) who would claim AR15 and similar weapon systems are not currently in common use for lawful purposes should be put in a mental institution.