Across the country, Democrats are moving to ban popular semiautomatic weapons as well as magazines holding more than 10 or 15 rounds of ammunition. That includes, most recently, Virginia, which has careened to the left after the election of Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D). However, the most chilling such legislation may be in Minnesota, where state Sen. Matt Klein has introduced SF 4290. The law not only bans semiautomatic rifles and magazines with more than ten bullets, but also allows citizens to keep prior purchased weapons only if they agree to allow the police to enter their homes to inspect storage and safety conditions.
The Supreme Court has thus far dodged review of these bans. However, while courts have upheld the bans in places like Illinois, some of us believe that banning weapons like the AR-15 is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
We have a Second Amendment protection of gun ownership, with over 490 million guns in private hands, as of 2022. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. These AR-15s clearly are not being purchased for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection; it is also popular for target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun sold in terms of caliber; many guns have equal or greater caliber.
Courts are divided on both the bans on semiautomatic weapons and the magazine bans.
However, what makes the Minnesota law so distinctive is the provision on home inspections. The law states that, in addition to securing state permission or certification for the possession of existing weapons, owners must “agree to allow the appropriate law enforcement agency to inspect the storage of the
device to ensure compliance with this subdivision.”
So new sales of these models would be banned, while existing weapons could only be retained if owners agree to home inspections. It is part of an overall assault on gun rights not just to limit models but to add layers of regulation for those who wish to retain their weapons.
These laws will, hopefully, compel the Court to accept review of these laws and bring greater clarity on the scope of this individual right.
How can it be legal to require people to surrender their 4th Amendment rights in order to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights? What next? In order to exercise your freedom of religion, you have to give up your freedom of speech and agree to not criticize the government? This is the tyranny our founders warned us about.
OT
The Persian Empire was Great. Persians are great. Where the —- are they? Where the —- are the Great Persians in their Finest Hour?
Here we go again. Democrats pass some un-Constitutional law, goes all the way up to the SC. SC rules it un-Constitutional, sets precedent to further secure gun ownership rights.
Shall not be infringed….uh hem, registered so they know where they are. 😂 oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive. 😂
Insurrectionist democrats now offering a right to gun ownership. MOM!
Mom: We already have gun ownership at home.
The offending statement: “A person described in paragraph (a) must: … (2) agree to allow the appropriate law enforcement agency to inspect the storage of the device to ensure compliance with this subdivision;” We are looking down the slippery slope of the positive rights mentality in legislatures where the government grants “rights” but only under certain conditions.