Replies

Make yours that there is some penumbra in the commerce clause that allows the '68 GCA to infringe upon the clear words of the 2nd

The Constitution states that you have a RKBA.
That you are not allowed to purchase them IN ANY WAY YOU SEE FIT, does not infringe on that right, as long as there is no undue impediment to your aquiring the gun.

tpaine:
Make yours that there is some penumbra in the commerce clause that allows the '68 GCA to infringe upon the clear words of the 2nd

The Constitution states that you have a RKBA.
That you are not allowed to purchase them IN ANY WAY YOU SEE FIT, does not infringe on that right, as long as there is no undue impediment to your aquiring the gun.
68 -ew-

I see fit to have my brother in Minnesota send me [in CA] a Mdl 12 shotgun my father owned.
-- Under the 'law' you support, both of us would be felons, if he did so.

Is that enough of an 'undue impediment' to you?

That you are not allowed to purchase them IN ANY WAY YOU SEE FIT, does not infringe on that right, as long as there is no undue impediment to your aquiring the gun.

Let's try these on for size, shall we?

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people, meaning those allowed by government and as permitted by law or regulation, to keep and bear arms, of acceptable caliber and type of ammunition, shall not be unduly infringed, except those in South Central L.A. who are underage, who have no rights under this section, due to reasons we all know but don't want to openly admit.

Which one of these is closer to what is actually written in the Bill of Rights? And which one more accurately reflects what you believe is or ought to be the case?