[Dewhitewolf]

BillCA, I suggested that the Supreme Court would not find a one-gun-per-month law to be an "unreasonable restriction." I did not suggest that I agreed with that. I also suggested that an individual would have to show that the law caused him to suffer some loss of a constitutional right in order for any of the federal courts to even have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Supreme Court is not simply going to point to an existing law and say "foul!"

My state has just passed the one-gun-per-month law, to go into effect in January. At least three other states have such a law in place already, and none of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have found it to be constitutionally void.

Back in the late '90's, NJ gun rights groups tried to challenge NJ's assault weapons ban to the Supreme Court. Our case was rejected. I believe the same will happen if we try to challenge one gun per month laws to the Supreme Court.

Your comments about restraint of rights, government abuse, and limits on how many times per month a person can invoke other rights are appreciated, but purely academic.