It doesn’t matter what you accept – what matters is what the law accepts.
Not to mention he was a conservative, not an anarchist. He wasn’t speaking literally.
Question – which law says that?
Both NJ and California have laws that say if a “smart gun” is offered for sale anywhere, no other guns will be allowed to be sold in that state.
Thank you. Yeah, that’s a pretty bad law, but in no way does it justify mafia-style tactics.
I’m curious how those laws got passed. Was the NRA sleeping at the time? Was there an epic battle over it? Did the voters approve it?
California, it was SB 293.
It’s funny, this is like the third time this question was asked. It’s like the liberals cannot believe such a ridiculously authoritarian law can actually exist - but then when they find out it does exist they defend it anyway.
It’s nice to know that my sister, who was killed as a child by another child family member playing with his father’s gun, is a neglible statistic.
And I defended it where?
Posts #73 and #86. Though, granted, your argument could have been from ignorance (or completely ignoring numerous previous posts that pointed out the law’s existence).
Nowhere did I defend a law that allowed only smart guns to be sold. I stated that said merchant should be allowed to sell a product IF there was a demand for it, and that people who disagreed with that should not be permitted to react by harassing the guy. Granted, I misunderstood and thought that people were saying that by selling said gun, he was encouraging law makers to create such a law. That doesn’t mean I agree that such a law should exist.
Don’t twist my words around just to fit your agenda.
Here’s a thought - what if the “key” also had a built in communication aspect, so that it could be disabled remotely?
Wouldn’t that be really cool IN SOME INSTANCES?
Stolen gun - disable the key
Person “goes crazy” - disable the key
I would see plenty of good uses for such technology
Criminals crack the key, disable the guns of all those cops anxiously waiting for their “Smart Guns”. Oh, wait, the cops aren’t using them. That’s OK, we know the criminals will have them, right? So we can disable their … wait … the criminals cracked the key. Crap. Won’t they please think of the children.
Oh yes. And of course, with all the stories of cracked codes and NSA built-in back-doors in communication/encryption software, the idea that the government will have the means to disable any such gun any time they want will NEVER become widely spread.
And isn’t it great to own a gun where if your battery is discharged or dead, you can’t use it? Wonderful idea.
Today so many appliances can crash and have to be rebooted. Happens quite regularly to my TV. Soon you maybe will have to reboot your gun and hope the reboot clears the problem.
What court decisions are you basing that claim on? I see nothing in the text of the Second Amendment regulating the right to SELL arms.
More coy stupidity.
I can’t help but notice you didn’t answer the question. What court decision has held that banning the sale of certain kinds of guns violates the Second Amendment?
The 2nd Amendment clearly implies that the right of the People to keep and bear arms is at least necessary to insure that a militia is well regulated. Now, does any small arms expert care to opine whether the smart guns offered for sale at this time are sufficient to arm a militia … a militia that will see to the security of a free state? I suggest that the gun in question is not sufficient to such a task. If not, it doesn’t satisfy the requirements of supplying a militia. If the authorities ban the other arms that adequately fill the roles of militia-ready weapons, then they have undermined the 2nd Amendment. On that subject, as far as I know, the courts aren’t yet on record with decisions.
No such court decision. And “banning the sale of certain kinds of guns” is not the problem in this case. It is “banning the sale of all kinds of guns except one”.
Except one type. Smart gun tech can be applied to all your favorite hand held people killing devices.