I believe in a person's right to own or not own guns. I don't look down on anyone who chooses not to. I'm simply opposed to them who believe that I shouldn't because they don't like them.
I've owned more than 50 (estimated) guns in my life and currently own 14. The only reason I have this many right now is because I helped a couple of friends who were in a financial bind. I'm basically holding 5 guns until my friends can buy them back. If they never do -- then I'll either keep them or sell them for cash.
I'm sorry you aren't able to have them but it's my opinion that unless you are a violent felon that nothing should keep you from owning at least one for self protection.
I should like to ask the millions of Americans who feel as this poster does if there should not be a similar benign tolerance for those of our fellow citizens who feel about hand grenades, mortars or RPGs the way he does about guns. These weapon systems are also essential to any effective militia and can come in quite handy for home defense. All are forms of "arms" as cited in the Second Amendment.
Strict constructionists who interpret the Constitution by the light of the Founders' Intent, claim that the Second Amendment grants members of a state militia the right to keep and bear a smooth bore flintlock musket. Most of us think that is an overly strict and narrow interpretation and that the II Amendment gives pretty much everyone the right to own a semi-automatic firearm for home defense. But why draw the line there? Why not fully automatic firearms? Why not grenades and mortars? There is too much fuzzy thinking about this right to bear arms thing.
Actually not.
Although Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy compared to that of the First or Fourth Amendments, for example, there exist fundamental principles of law that that provide the courts guidance nonetheless:
We know as a fact of law that the Second Amendment is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, such as the OP. (
DC v. Heller (2008)).
We know that weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual are not entitled to Second Amendment protections (
US v. Miller (1939)).
We know that jurisdictions may ban certain firearms pursuant to public safety as a compelling governmental interest (
NYSRPA v. Cuomo).
And we know that jurisdictions may not ban the carrying of concealed firearms by citizens (
Shepard v. Madigan).
Consequently, the case law is clear that there is no Second Amendment right to possess fully automatic firearms, grenades, and mortars as they are all clearly dangerous and unusual weapons where their prohibition indeed constitutes a compelling governmental interest.
