Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
No, you missed my point entirely. If the bigger affront to the "ideals" of the 2nd amendment was not legally a violation in 86 (and I'm sure the NRA's busload of lawyers would have stopped it if they could have) then it seems unlikely to me that a lesser affront to the ideals will be deemed a violation.
You can personally hold the opinion of course, but unless you are a supreme court judge or something, that opinion wont change much.
My point is that some people here say these NY laws are such a clear violation that they wont stand a chance in court, but looking at what's happened so far, it would seem to me that maybe they are wrong...
I'm no fortune teller, so I guess we'll see what really happens.
How do you figure it wasn't a violation? Does artificially limiting the supply and preventing new sales not infringe on my ability to keep and bear arms? Perhaps it seemed reasonable at the time when different gun groups thought "compromise" wasn't a euphemism for "continuing eroding rights/slippery slope", but that's been shown to not be the case. Therefore, any new gun laws will be fought tooth and nail.
Where in the constitution is the government given the authority to enact the '86 ban? I can show you a place where they're specifically prohibited from doing it.
Related question: do you know why it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?