Originally Posted by will12785
The "bump stock ban" classified any gun with a bump stock as a "machine gun" making it subject to federal regulation. Federal regulations which some would deam to be a 2nd amendment violation.
The NYS safe act did the same thing by classifying any gun with certain features as an "assault weapon" making it subject to the rules of the safe act.
So if the bump stock ban isn't an infringement on the second amendment how can the safe act be?
actually, the bump stock was reclassified as a machine gun on its own, which since it had literally no impact on the function of a firearm, was completely ludicrous.
The safe act put limits on and regulated anything deemed an "assault weapon" (among other things), and since that infringed on and regulated actual firearms and the processes around possessing them, its clearly a second amendment infringement, as well as several others, including the 4th amendment and 5th amendment.
If you want to have a discussion about how the treatment of actual machine guns and the restrictions on them are violations on the second amendment, then i'm all for it, because thats factual. But just because the government defines something a certain way, doesn't mean it actually is that thing.
if something is unconstitutional, does it deserve less or more outrage depending on what Amendments to the BOR it violates? IE, the bump stock ban is unconstitutional, so does it matter what portion of the constitution it violates? or are we only really concerned and outraged about the 2nd amendment and no others?
remember, this is all just food for thought. im not dismissing how wrong any of these laws are, but maybe trying to get people to reflect on what rights the laws violate and where outrage should be placed.