Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 02/27/10 04:01, Warp wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>>         I think you're assuming that the ban will be sudden. Make it happen
>>> slowly (over, say, 2 decades), and the outcome may be quite muted.
>>   I don't think it's possible to repeal an amendment over the span of
>> 2 decades. It's instantaneous: At one moment the amendment is valid,
>> the next moment it has been repealed. I don't think there's any middle
>> ground there.
> 
> 	Well, yes there is. In the US, there's a ban on a number of kinds of
> guns. That's already a partial ban.
> 

The various bans have been challenged on Constitutional grounds before.
There was a recent case in . . . Tennessee I think. I don't recall if it
got to SCOTUS, but the goal was to weaken the National Firearms Act (the
ban). There was also a law passed in Montana that intends to do away
with the NFA in-state. Since it was only passes last year, it will be
some time before it gets tested.

What I find amusing is that the NFA ban is based on Congress's
assumed/presumed power (Commerce Clause) to regulate items that affect
inter-state commerce, even if those items never cross state lines, or
are not even sold. The same power is what gives the various drug
enforcement agencies their clout. Get rid of one, and the other is
likely to fail on precedent. Amusing because, in stereotypes of
political leaning, the right wants to own guns and ban drugs, while the
left wants to ban guns and use drugs.

Post a reply to this message