Alvin T. Grey
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 839
- Reaction score
- 203
- Location
- Dublin
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I believe the legality of government infringements on private arms should have to meet the "Strict" test of Constitutionality: that is, they should require an overwhelming societal intrest to justify the intervention; the restriction should be very narrowly targeted to address a specific problem; pre-emptive infringement should be avoided if possible (that is, restricting a law-abiding citizen just because he might commit a crime) and there should be good reason to believe that such a law will actually have beneficial effects in the real world, as opposed to simply "because some politicians want to do this."
My take on it?
If you want one for hunting, then fine. Apply for a long rifle or shotgun license. The state or Feds must have a "shall issue" policy on that. Ditto for home defense. With a transport allowance for carrying to and from events or practice.
You want one for personal protection?
Sure, demonstrate a specifc threat. A barring order or security job or carrying cash etc.
You want a military grade weapon?
Sure. Demonstrate membership in a recognized regulated militia.