Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

A thing can be unconstitutional and be current law. This is what you don't understand.

 

except it cant. until ruled unconstitutional, it isn't.

 

actually its demonstrably correct to state that.

this is basic stuff here folks.

 

Until it's been ruled Constitutional by SCOTUS, is it constitutional, or just the law?

 

You can lead a horse to water but you can't teach it anything

 

It's both law, and constitutional.

 

lol, I'm not the one who thinks he can own a machine gun made after 1986, without being a Class 3 dealer.

 

so you really have no real purpose on being here other than trying to contradict =without making any arguments-pro gun posters who opine that a law that clearly violates the 2nd, and Tenth Amendments as well as the Heller and Miller rulings is unconstitutional.

 

lets suppose the law is before a court- make an argument why it should be ruled constitutional

 

I haven't said that, it is currently illegal to do so. Strawman argument.
What I said was that that law is itself unconstitutional because it violates US v Miller.

 

I'm just trying to get other gun owners to approach these issues in a rational manner. The nut jobs out there give us regular gun owners a bad name. And running around crying that laws that have not been ruled unconstitutional are constitutional, or claiming that you can own a machine gun made after 1986, as another poster keeps claiming, just makes the rest of us look bad.

 

why? I'm not arguing in favor of the law.

 

you and I went back and forth for pages about how you thought owning a machine gun made after 1986 was legal, or that the bans on them are in fact unconstitutional.

which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold. The legal reality though, is that the law is perfectly constitutional, until ruled otherwise.

 

so what is your position on it?

 

No, we went back and forth for pages on how it is constitutional to own such, but a law exists barring same which is unconstitutional. Quote me otherwise.

See US v Miller.

 

I don't care. I have no use for a machine gun. I also have no problem if you want to own one. I also have non problem with extra restrictions on them, as they pose a unique public safety hazard. But I am not for an outright ban on them.

 

Have you ever fired a selective fire weapon?

 

That's not how our system works. To pass a law first you must have the power to effect the issue. You've got the 2nd amendment there, and it specifies that the RKBA shall not be infringed. Firearms are arms. How then can the right to keep and bear them be infringed by what you have stated is a plainly arbitrary restriction? Especially in light of case law interpreting the right to cover "ordinary military equipment", which automatic weapons plainly are?

 

Yes

 

Yes it is. Which is why you can't own a machine gun made after 1986

 

what exactly makes a select fire M4 more a "unique public safety hazard" than a semi auto version?

 

Honest people should oppose laws that are clearly unconstitutional even if they are popular with the scum who pass them

 

Then why do you think one is uniquely dangerous?

 

Amen to that!

 

ability to fire multiple rounds at a faster rate of speed.