@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:I suggest you pay attention to Diane Feinstein.
Having a extremist introduce unconstitutional legislation is a far cry from making a serious push to pass it.
The Democrats don't want the NRA to destroy them. And they are the ones who would be voted out of office, not you.
I do admit that the irony would be amazingly sweet though, if the Democrats did pass this and get themselves voted out of office, and then the courts struck the magazine limits down along with the rest of the legislation.
The Democrats would be able to try again with just a stand-alone bill dealing with magazine limits, but the fact that there would no longer be a functional Democratic Party would prevent them from achieving anything.
MontereyJack wrote:You're wrong. The courts won't strike it down. Assault weapons clearly fall under Scalia's concept of dangerous and unusual weapons in 18th century terms, which even he says can be regulatable.
No, harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip and flash suppressor do not in any way fall under any concept of a dangerous or unusual weapon.
MontereyJack wrote:And you'll probably lose the fifth swing vote on this. I'd say you're in trouble.
Not a chance. Banning harmless cosmetic features that there is no plausible reason to ban is about the most cut and dried example of unconstitutional legislation that can be had.
