it is a specific kind of republic: a democratic republic. .
I thought we were a federal constitutional republic, and Germany for instance...was once a democratic republic.
it is a specific kind of republic: a democratic republic. .
I thought we were a federal constitutional republic
-These terms only become contentious when people, either through ignorance or deception, misrepresent the meanings of these words
So my point was just that we should focus on how things really happen here, and not get lost in an endless political/philosophical debate over whether the US is "really" a democracy or a republic.
Would the banning of semi automatic pistols be constitutional if revolvers were untouched? Can some arms be banned as long as all are not? How about Hi Cap magazines, would a ban on that pass strict scrutiny...how about intermediate scrutiny?
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."
The whole "its a republic not a democracy" bit is a rhetorical trick used to divert and stall debate. It has no informational value.
Okay, we really don't vote for our President in our republic.
this would imply that limiting the capacity of magazines could pass constitutional muster, as it is currently interpreted.
Really? I didn't think there was ever a definitive court challenge at the federal level. Please correct me if I'm wrong.The Clinton era awb was deemed constitutional at the time.
AFAIK it is now shipping at the originally-promised rate, but many dealers are still trying to catch up with a backlog of orders.They would be much more so, if Kel-tec would get their PMR-30, out faster...
"If the courts would find a magazine capacity limit to be constitutional, I wonder what would be the criteria for establishing the lower limit? Why not a max of 1, or 2, or 6? Why would they stop at 10?"
csmsss said:Here's the problem as I see it. Assuming such a law were to somehow be enacted, and its constitutionality heard by the court, we face a Hobson's choice. By that I mean a lose-lose proposition. I think the court would first set out to determine, first and foremost, whether a magazine/clip/whatever is covered under Heller/McDonald. Likely, that test would be whether the loading device can be said to be a firearm. If it's not a firearm, then it is not covered under Heller/McDonald and therefore can be restricted statutorily. If it IS a firearm, then it would be subject to the same purchase restrictions, NICS check, etc. that a firearm is subject to. Either way, the antis win.