Massachusetts’ law prohibiting the possession and sale of some semiautomatic weapons commonly used in mass shootings is acceptable under a recent change to Second Amendment precedent from the US Supreme Court, a federal judge said Thursday.
The 1st 10 amendments have been there since nearly the beginning. We’re not losing anything, it has always worked like this.
What exactly do you think changed? MA said that within their borders, only certain guns are allowed. You still have the right to bear arms there (even if you more not part of a well-regulated militia, which I think should absolutely matter), just not the ones that can sweep across and kill a large crowd from far away.
I fail to see a downside.
EDIT: Removed hyperbole regarding presence of Bill of Rights vs length of existence of the USA
10th amendment specifies exactly what you’re saying, that nothing explicitly written is up to the people or states.
Well that’s exactly my point. It’s gutting 150 years of precedent making you guys a country.
It’s not a good thing. A war was fought over this.
The 1st 10 amendments have been there since nearly the beginning. We’re not losing anything, it has always worked like this.
What exactly do you think changed? MA said that within their borders, only certain guns are allowed. You still have the right to bear arms there (even if you more not part of a well-regulated militia, which I think should absolutely matter), just not the ones that can sweep across and kill a large crowd from far away.
I fail to see a downside.
EDIT: Removed hyperbole regarding presence of Bill of Rights vs length of existence of the USA