Amazon.com Widgets

Do laws limiting the types of ammunition for guns sold violate constitutional law?

  • You're all crazy.

    Absolutely. You are permitted to bear arms. FIREarms. This is here for a reason. You don't mess with the constitution for a reason. It's right. People moved here exactly so they WOULDN'T have this problem. Come on people, hiw would you feel if all of a sudden you where told you

  • You're all crazy.

    Absolutely. You are permitted to bear arms. FIREarms. This is here for a reason. You don't mess with the constitution for a reason. It's right. People moved here exactly so they WOULDN'T have this problem. Come on people, hiw would you feel if all of a sudden you where told you

  • The Second Amendment is clear.

    Yes, laws limiting the types of ammunition for guns sold violates constitutional law, because the Second Amendment does not leave a lot of room for discussion on the issue. The Second Amendment says that "laws respecting the right of the people to bear arms shall not be abridged." A gun is no good without ammunition.

  • "Arms", not "firearms".

    The right to bear arms does not include the most efficient, or modern, or even a free choice about the arms allowed. Just a basic right to arm yourself.
    So if the government tasked with upholding the public order decrees that military rifles and ammunition are not allowed, then so be it.

  • Laws limiting the types of ammunition for guns sold does not violate constitutional law.

    Laws limiting the types of ammunition for guns sold does not violate constitutional law. I think that they should limit the types of ammunition for guns because who really needs a gun that can rapid fire. I think by limiting the ammunition you would be able to save some peoples lives.

  • Challenge Them And Find Out

    The only real way to assess rather laws limiting ammunition types violate constitutional law is to have it sent up to the courts, for them to rule on. I doubt that they are violations of the constitutional law because there is quite a bit of debate as to whether or not rights dictate that Americans actually have a right to bear arms. These rights certainly don't say anything about ammunition or our right to have it.

  • No, the Constitution doesn't address this.

    When the constitution of the United States of America was written, the right to bear arms had more to do with the right of citizens to form militias against government oppression such as had been fought in the Revolutionary War. We are not meant to carry military firearms as individual citizens, and laws saying this are correct.

  • Laws limiting the types of ammunition for guns sold do not violate constitutional law.

    The Second Amendment does not protect people's right to have deadly weapons. The actual wording of the amendment says that a well trained militia has the right to bear arms. The framers of the constitution never intended for normal citizens to have guns, especially the kind that are available today.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.