You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Actually there has been some case law about what may or may not be constitutional.
The essential ban on civilians owning short barrelled and fully automatic weapons (Got $10,000+ and the permission of the local police?) dates from the attempts to keep Tommy guns from gangsters and hasn't been tested in court recently, but was upheld at the time, when the current right for an individual to bear arms wasn't in effect. I'm sure the NRA will challenge this in time, but at the moment they were busy campainging for Castle Doctrine and Concealed Carry, and now they have their hands full with the current events.
Complete bans of a class of weapon are not allowed, handgun bans in DC and Chicagoland were overturned. My feeling is that the proposed "scary looking gun" ban would pass consitutional muster, but say an Australian style complete ban on all semi-automatic rifles would not, something even the most ardent anti-gun people aren't talking about (at the moment).
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks