Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
The more useful test would be:
1. Does the government have a compelling interest in creating the law?
2. Is the statute is "narrowly tailored" to meet the government's objectives?
3. Are there less restrictive means of accomplishing the same thing?
|
This would be the standard "court approved" methodology for "infringing" on a right.
Otherwise, I agree with Webleymkv, except to the extent that I believe there are considerations beyond self-defense.
C4, for example. Defensively it's a stretch, no doubt, but at one time not so long ago, it was completely legal, and quite common, for farmers and folks with similar needs to buy dynamite. I see no reason that C4 wouldn't be similar. Dynamite was baneed for essentially the same reason that they're going after our guns... a few nuts did some really bad stuff so the powers that be took the stuff away.
Personally, I believe the limits should be on items of truly massive destruction only, such a nukes and nerve gas.