Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
Doesn't matter or not if you or I figure it is a violation. Why don't people get that? It's like yelling at a ref during a football game. His ruling affects the outcome, your screaming from the stands does not.
If the gov was legally unable to enact the '86 ban, then surely it would have been overturned when the NRA threw a bunch of the finest lawyers that big money can buy at it.
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but what is clear from observing the past, is that it must not be as simple as, "see, the constitution says you cant do this, case closed".
Do you think a government would come out and say they're violating their own rules? This is a great demonstration of the validity of the slippery slope argument. At what point does it become infringement if not at the first law prohibiting arms. I'm asking your personal opinion.
Why was a constitutional amendment required to ban alcohol?