Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9yehpt wrote

Doesn’t infringe on anything. You still are able to keep and bear arms. Can’t afford the bullets? Oh, well. You could always make your own.

−1

gewehr44 t1_ja1ul72 wrote

Could the govt tax newspapers so that every copy cost $100?

2

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja2hjxq wrote

Yeah, if they so chose.

0

gewehr44 t1_ja5i709 wrote

Disagree. Under Murdock v pa the state cannot tax a right. Taxing something that is a right to make it unaffordable would be unconstitutional. See also poll taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Pennsylvania?wprov=sfla1

1

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja5mfn2 wrote

Touché. Fortunately ammunition isn’t a right.

1

gewehr44 t1_ja6vjmo wrote

I forgot someone else wrote about this:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/02/gun-controllers-have-it-all-figured-out/

The idea that ammunition isn't included is laughable. There are a number of court cases that should be decided this year that will shed some more light on this topic

1

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja7nind wrote

Why would ammunition be a right? Not mentioned at all. I fear you will be disappointed with the results of those court cases.

1

gewehr44 t1_ja7phfv wrote

The right to keep and bear arms is not just about guns. It also includes knives & other implements useful for self defense. In Caetano v Massachusetts, stun guns were deemed to be protected by the 2nd. Claiming that the people can own arms but not the means to make them useful is a 'too clever by half' interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts?wprov=sfla1

1

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja7q5q2 wrote

But not ammunition.

1

gewehr44 t1_jaa3n5p wrote

1

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_jachrce wrote

Another article full of likely. But no decision.

1

gewehr44 t1_jadr2x3 wrote

If it's so obvious then, why hasn't any state passed legislation banning ammunition? I don't think it's even been proposed.

1