one gun per month?

T

thequickad

New member
Will someone please explain the constitutionality of "one-gun-per-month?" If something is legal to purchase, can the government limit the quantity? It's like saying you can only buy one car a month or one TV a month? Pretty soon, they will tell us one-burger-a-month because most Americans are overweight? :confused:

[Edited by thequickad on 12-28-2000 at 01:24 AM]
 
Well, no, I can't -

the only good thing I can say about 1 gun/month is that it helps me budget, and the time between purchases is good for research. What I REALLY hate is the 3 day waiting period here in Fairfax County. I mean, after I got the first one, exactly what is the point? [the following is purely hypothetical and hyperbolic] Unless I've really got a need to shoot someone with a caliber I don't already own, this is just a PITA and an excuse to have one more tax-subsidized lard-bottomed bureaucrat shuffling thru my paperwork to see if it's 'O-tay' for me to have a gun, again. It all sux. M2
 
Mike, I get around Alexandria's illegal, unjust and stupid waiting period by buying all of my guns out in Warrenton. My gundealer lives out there. This way, after my purchase, he and I go out to Clark Bros, and test the s**t out of it. (He can order anything, works on almost everything and gets me very good prices too.)
 
You mean the one gun a month is a maximum. I thought it was a minimum and was having problems keeping up. My budget was going to make me miss a month and I thought I was going to be in trouble. ;)
 
quickad, you're catching on that gun rights are a sub-set of property rights. Eradicating gun rights is the first step to eradicating property rights and personal rights. This is the line of reasoning that lead me to join the NRA before owning a gun. Spread the word in this way to other like minded non-gun owning friends. This is one way for 2nd Amendment supporters to take the offensive against the collectivist confiscationist ninnies.
 
I don't think there is any Constitutional authority for Congress to ration us to one gun a month. The Commerce Clause has been overstretched and happily the Supreme Court has begun to curtail its application.

I'll tell you what will ration me (and probably the rest of us) though. First is budget. Unless you're Bill Gates, you only have so much disposable income. Second is space in the safe. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few TFLers have stuff falling out when they open the door.
 
Budget is definitely an issue. But you should have the freedom of choice to not go out for fastfood (and drink just tap water for that matter) if you want to buy two handguns a month. Have not see NRA nor the Kalifornia Rifle & Pistol association taken up this issue in the courts. :confused:
 
...why hasn't the NRA challenge this in the courts?
Click to expand...
The following is my opinion.

Probably for a few reasons. First is the need for a case. I'm don't know the actual wording of the law in Virginia or any other state that limits people to "one gun a month". But what is the penalty for trying to buy a second gun ? I'm guessing that you are just told "Sorry, come back in a week, you bought a gun 24 days ago." It would then be up to the denied buyer to bring a case against this law. The buyer would need to have the money to hire a good attorney and the funds to continue the case as it moves through the system. This is very expensive. If there was a more serious penalty for trying to buy that second gun, say 6 months in jail, then the NRA et.al. would be more inclined to support that person. I guess that no one in Virginia has the time and money to pursue a lawsuit yet.

That brings me to my second point. For the NRA to bring a case against one gun a month it needs have standing. In other words, one gun a month does not deny the NRA from buying a gun. It denies a resident of Virginia or wherever. The resident has standing not the NRA and so the resident has to bring the lawsuit.

Finally, the court cases the NRA gets involved in are chosen very carefully to in the hopes of achieving a favorable outcome. Outright loses can be more damaging than the positive of a minor win.

BTW, the one gun a month laws are all at the state level. Congress has not passed this yet.

HTH,
-Mike
 
Look at it this way; if NRA considers state battles to be too small, don't forget states like NJ or California sets the precedents for the rest of the nation. What good is the battle at the federal level when the states are figuring out how to ban firearms? The gun-owners cannot fight because of limited resources and NRA is only fighting federal battles. So the anti-gun groups only need to win state by state to win the war. :mad:
 
They are already filing one gun a month, total "assault weapoons" ban, and Ballistic fingerprinting laws in Mass after this Wakefield incident. We have on senator who is a B!*ch. She has nothing better to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top