MO & MN to Confiscate Lawfully Owned Guns

[ATB]

I can't find a source this isn't clearly far right wing, but is this the further erosion of Constitutional rights?

Is this clearly unconstitutional? I mean there's no guarantee to own assault rifles or extended mags, but I think that's an insufficient justification.

[hepcat]

I can't find a source this isn't clearly far right wing, but is this the further erosion of Constitutional rights?

 

Sorry, I know it was probably unintentional, but it made me chuckle.

[TiLT]

If you purchase something that later becomes illegal, it's no longer lawfully owned. The title is heavily skewed, and that article is painfully biased.

[wonderpug]

I just hope this stuff can hurry up and get to a Supreme Court decision so we can just settle what's legal or not legal once and for all.  Stuff like the NY legislation and now these new ones in MO and MN are just fueling the fire without accomplishing anything.

[ATB]

If you purchase something that later becomes illegal, it's no longer lawfully owned. The title is heavily skewed, and that article is painfully biased.

That's an oversimplification, imo. This is a constitutional battle whether correctly so or not.

And assault rifles and extended mags are still legal.

Edit: And if the ban is re-instituted, there will most assuredly be a grandfather clause.

[hepcat]

I wouldn't call it an actual constitutional battle unless they were confiscating ALL guns.  I'm guessing this is more of a good will law by a few dems prompted by what they're reading in the papers and seeing on tv.  Those proposing it probably don't actually expect it to pass.  Things like this happen in Washington all the time.  The intent (in my uneducated opinion) is to get discussions started.  I think it's a bit underhanded, but that's the nature of politics.