Thanks, Tom- I don't know what the deal was with that previous link.
I find one particular aspect of the amendment really interesting...
Quote:
|
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property... shall not be questioned... The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny...
|
The boldfaced section (
emphasis mine) seems to directly lay the groundwork for legal challenges to any state or municipal legislation similar to the 94 AWB or NY Safe Act. It seems to me that the state would have to successfully argue that a ban on the possession and/or defensive use of a particular accessory does not affect "the normal function" of the arm.
Case in point: commonly-possessed AR and AK-style long guns have 30rd magazines, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and flash hiders, and one can certainly make a coherent and reasonable argument that such items contribute to "normal function", thus making it very difficult for the state to ban such items without a REALLY ironclad reason. IOW if the doodad
demonstrably does something- even if its function is minor or ancillary, it makes no difference-
and the doodad is normally used with the arm, the state can't arbitrarily ban the doodad. "It's scary looking!", "It only belongs on the battlefield!", or "Drug cartels like them!" likely won't cut it.
OK, the purple tiger-stripe camo on those new S&W M&P 15-22's may be subject to a hypothetical ban, but that's no big loss.
