because as long as you can get a gun without the amount of hoops being unreasonable that means the right and ability to bear an arm hasn't been infringed.

can you get and own a gun in almost no time flat? yes. then the right to bear arms hasn't been infringed. even with background checks you're looking at what, 2 days max most places? gasp, the horror, muh infringement. in the year 1860 it used to take months for the shotgun you ordered out of the sears catalog to arrive.

"Reasonableness" is arbitrary and the application thereof capricious. This has long been an issue with US law. https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/neily_ny_journal.pdf

and that's why we have judges, to judge such things, in a supreme manner. judges who refuse to define entirely what a reasonable restriction of rights constitutes, but deal with them on a case by case basis. thus creating a landscape where impediment to purchasing a firearm does not violate the right to possess one.

You didn't read the link, did you?

i clicked it and skimmed.

i'm very much aware that reasonableness of gun laws is on the far end of subjective law, and don't think that should prevent it's application. all of the amendments to the constitution that really matter are the same. what is a fair trial? what is the freedom of speech? what constitutes religious freedom? etc. None are free of arbitrary judgement based on precedent and reason.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/rep-don-beyer-1000-percent-tax-ar-15-assault-weapons/#app



Typical democrat non sense.

making the taxes on cigarettes look cheap, goddamn.

...and precedent and "reason" are the problem. Which was the point of the article. Judges can be all like "it's reasonable to infringe your rights, so I will allow it." There has to be a higher standard where peoples' rights are concerned than "rational basis."