4cal wrote:Again, the 2nd Amendment makes no mention of the size of magazines or clips or whatever you wish to call them. So there is no "cover" given to the discussion on clip size. Obviously, while an attacker is re-loading, they are not firing the weapon, giving students time to leave the scene and/or armed defenders be it teachers, security, or other law enforcement, time to move in and take out or take down the active shooter.
Why would anyone be opposed to limits on clip size?
I was not addressing that argument, only those that claimed that the 2nd amendment is meant to protect the bare private ownership of an arm and nothing else whatoever and that gun controls laws have nothing to due with the constitutional amendment in question. My point is that the Supreme Court disagrees with that interpretation and has and will strike down gun control laws if they feel such infringes with the right, and the right's purpose, as designed by the founders.
Likewise, I was also addressing the argument that popular desire for gun control was grounds for its needing to be legislated, my point was that such a claim was exactly why our government was intentionally designed to NOT be a democracy in the first place, so that popular passion and whim did not dictate policy. Changing U.S. laws pertaining to constitutional rights is supposed to be difficult, it was difficult by design so that the mob and no one branch of government could infringe upon the rights of others simply because they got fired up over a recent tragedy or disaster.
Thats all.
BUT, I can tell you right now, that the Supreme court would see clip-size regulations as being in the perview of the states and would likely reject federal legislation on such. Further, if some states tried to pull a "one-bullet" limit for all clips...(like dumb-ass California would likely try to pull), I guarantee the Supreme Court would strike down all clip requirements nationwide is response to the litigation that would invariably result.
In Constitutional law, part of the grounds for interpreting a law's constitutionality stems from its potential implications in limiting a person's rights....I promise that a "one-bullet clip" limit would come up and be seen as violating the rights of free citizens and such a possibility would be a consideration in the Court's decision. I'll bet my right testicle on it.