Quote:
Originally Posted by jyl
Maybe a few of the most extreme laws would get invalidated, perhaps only partly. For example, look at the DC ordinance. In DC you essentially cannot own a handgun, but you may own a long gun. Could this be considered "reasonable"? Well, for home defense a shotgun arguably works just fine - lots of people on PPOT have posted that a shotgun is the best choice - so it might be reasonable to permit long guns but not handguns. In the end, things might not change so much in DC, might it? Especially if you wanted a handgun . . .
Same w/ SF, NYC, and a handful of other places with the most restrictive laws. Things might not change much.
As for the less severe gun control ordinances that affect the rest of us - the CA "assault rifle" ban, bans on .50 cal rifles, restrictions on full-auto guns, restrictive concealed-carry laws, etc - it is very likely they would pass a "reasonableness" test.
|
You're leaving out the part of the DC law that says ALL long guns must be kept unloaded and inoperable at all times. How is that reasonable for self-defense? How is it reasonable for such a crime-ridden city to tell its residents that only the city government may protect its citizens and no one may protect themselves? That's outrageous.
None of CA's crazy gun laws are reasonable at all. Any criminal who's willing to use a gun in a crime is not at all deterred by a potentials weapons possession charge for having an "assault" rifle. When's the last time you heard about someone taking down a liquor store with a $7k .50 cal. rifle that weighs 20 lbs.? Not criminal's first choice of guns.