|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MO: Limit long guns' potential for a high casualty count
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
There is no need for a long gun to have a magazine that holds more than five rounds and no need for the magazine to be detachable. Magazines should be reloaded one round at a time through the breech. If long guns were limited in this manner, it would greatly diminish the potential for a high casualty count when the next disturbed person decides to start shooting at a large gathering with a semiautomatic rifle. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/11/2017)
|
Arms "in common use" that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and/or are "any part of the ordinary military equipment" are within the ambit of Second Amendment protection, per U.S. v. Miller (1939)
And this protection extends to design components and ammunition, as the criteria established supra. Militia applications are, de facto, military applications, and the Court stipulated that the "efficiency of a well regulated militia" confers protection.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
