Dewhitewolf,
I'm glad you don't agree that a 1-gun-a-month scheme would be legal. Because it isn't.
Quote:
|
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.
|
That is because no one has yet filed a challenge to these schemes in a post-Heller environment. Once the RKBA is incorporated against the states, these laws will fall. In fact, a challenge could be coming in a western state within the 9th Circuit - which has already incorporated.
Quote:
|
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.
|
There is a challenge to California's AW ban forming as we speak. Once again, what happened in a pre-Heller court does not necessarily apply in a post-Heller world.
Constitutional rights cannot be legislated away nor restricted by legislation alone. To lose or restrict any of your rights, you must first have
due process before a court.
Legislating that you can only attend a place of worship once-a-month is prior restraint on a fundamental right. It is the same with the 2A right.