irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,568
- 3
- 0
I think we are missing a key point here. While the 2nd amendment preserves the right to keep and bear arms, it does not restrict the government from restricting the sales/trade/transfer of ammuntion and that is the key to how the gov't could effectively regulate guns. So if you can not purchase say ammo or the components to create/reload ammo, well now you have a very expensive club.
There is a presidence for restricting types of ammo, and that means the government could restrict rounds that fit these large capacity magazines. Or they could make it so onerous/expensive by taxing and documentation to purchase ammo that it would effectively achieve the same effect as a assault weapon ban.
So the government is going to restrict ammunition for every gun that has detachable magazines available? Because that's what they'd have to do to implement that idea. They'd basically be restricting the ten most popular calibers and would affect users who don't even own assault weapons/hi-cap magazines.
In short, that would be WAY too much of a political shitstorm and would never pass in the current climate. Besides, under the Heller decision handguns are protected because they are the "overwhelming choice of Americans for self defense". If they start banning ammo for 75% of the handguns on the market they might as well be banning gasoline, and it could be argued that such a ban infringes on the 2nd amendment.