Anti-Democracy advocate, Mixed government is the only good government
THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
today, they are extremely common.
another clause that guides regulations states these weapons must be "dangerous and unusual" ... IMO, the "dangerous " part is silly.... every firearm can be dangerous in hte wrong hands, sometimes even in the right hands... but "unusual"?... assault weapons are hardly unusual now.
not that I agree with these guiding principles ( I'm more of a " if it's a firearm, you can keep and bear it" kinda guy, primarily because i'm not clueless about firearms) , but they just don't stand up to reality in regards to "assault" weapons anymore.
assault weapons are in common use, and they are not unusual.
"The law is reason, free from passion."
I tend to use the definition used by the military who used the first assault weapon in combat, the Wehrmacht during WW ll which was the Sturmgewehr-44(English translation, storm/assault rifle.)
Any rifle chambered for a cartridge larger than a pistol round but smaller than a rifle round.
Capable of full automatic fire.
There was no mention of magazines or cosmetic features like pistol grips, flash suppressors or having a bayonet lug.
When I served and when they took away my M-14 and issued me a M-16 it was never referred to as an assault rifle, it was referred to what it was, an infantry rifle or service rifle.
There were only two known assault rifles at the time during the Vietnam War era, the Sturmgewehr-44 and the AK-47. Both were chambered for a shorten version of the 8mm Mauser cartridge and the Russian 7.62X54 R.
The M-16 didn't meet the classification of an assault rifle because it was chambered for the 5.56 mm/ Remington .223 which was developed from the varmint rifle cartridge the Remington .222 that was developed to shoot groundhogs not Commies.