Who knew that the "well ackshually, technically, we're not banning guns, we're just requiring a serial number! (one that you cannot legally apply)" strategy wouldn't work.
"Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.
"Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.
Works surprisingly (depressingly) well when there’s no pushback. We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses. It’s not a movie and videogame censor, it’s just a state agency for mandatory age ratings. (In at least one Western country that was literally a rebrand.) Or closer to TFA’s locale, we’re not regulating commercial activity within a single state, we’re just controlling its impact on the interstate market. (Don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause, child labor is bad after all.)
See also:
"your 4th/5th/8th amendment rights aren't being violated because this is an administrative matter not a civil one"
>Don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause, child labor is bad after all.)
On an unrelated not the people who hold up the banning of child labor as some good thing really peeve me because it's ignorant of history. Child labor went away because industrialization made a man with a machine more valuable than a child with or without a machine.
Then once child labor was mostly gone the government went back and banned it in the few places it hung on. Textbook low impact pandering. Not any sort of accomplishment or hard fought thing. And it worked, because they're still crediting the government with it over a century later.
Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here.
Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extreme offroading.
Somehow I doubt that many 2nd amendment supporters would be okay with "You don't need a registration number on your gun, it'll just be illegal to carry/use it anywhere except private property"
The biggest problem with this (for the first group) would be conveyance from buyer to seller or to/from a range or hunting grounds.
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/receive...
Only a few states absolutely forbid operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (I know Washington is one). That said, you’d have to do something pretty absurd to attract the attention of law enforcement if you’re staying on your own land.
That's just BS. If the cops show up for any reason and they think they can get a DUI out of it they will try and write one.
Of course, Chinese cars in the US are effectively banned by regulations. Proof that VIN can be used for banning.
Per the statute text, you may not manufacture a firearm for personal use in Colorado: the statute requires an FFL's license number (which you do not have) to be placed in the serial number string.
FFLs didn't exist in 1790 - therefore this fails Bruen among other standards.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?
'A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.'
Whose rights shall not be infringed here, the breakfast's or those of the people?
Who has the right to keep and use toasters? The people, or the well-balanced breakfast?
The word "regulated", which has no semantic overlap with the modern meaning of the same word.
If one wants to make something illegal, the onus is on the lawmaker to write precise legislation. This is centuries-old legal doctrine.
It's the ATF and congressional Democrats (who are very much not "gun rights advocates") who created that "absurd fiction".