But we have all kinds of laws like that already. How about speed limits? Some people may be capable of driving responsibly at 120 mph and others aren’t. Since there is no practical way of determining who should be allowed to drive 120 mph and who shouldn’t be, we have speed limits that apply to every one. To some degree, that’s the nature of most of our laws. There’s nothing unconstitutional about it. The question of whether an individual instance goes too far is a judgement which needs to be made in each individual case. The Constitution is there to set limits to how restrictive laws can be, but within those limitations, laws by their very nature generally limit our freedoms to some extent.
Precisely.
“No practical way to determine”
“Needs to be made in each individual case”.
In the case of vehicles, as they aren’t mentioned in the constitution, they have been left to localities to govern. In most cases, on individual or local basis. Speed is limited, not access, not components.
You’re not viewed as potentially criminal because you own a sports car or a quiet engine.
As for things that are mentioned, some limitations are warranted in “individually’ determined’ circumstances.
As they say “All things in moderation”.
But it is certainly unconstitutional for a blanket application as it ignores individual rights and presumes all are guilty rather than resort to predefined methods of determining guilt for actual crimes.
Banning parts of something otherwise legal or in the case of arms, protected no less, is an extension of that abridgment.
Personally, I don’t appreciate being presumed criminal for wanting to own and operate machines and components I have every right and, indeed, responsibility to. Particularly with no recourse for redress.
And the less control some bureaucrat in California or New York has over my life and abilities half a country away, the better.