Re: lots of people
@Jesse, RE: Right to bear arms
No, states and cities cannot infringe on the constitution. That's the point- it's the code everyone is supposed to work within. There are means for revising it, but every jurisdiction beneath it must stay within the boundaries it sets forth.
That means that technically, you can challenge any law set forth by any jurisdiction in the US, be it Federal, State, County, or City, as unconstitutional, and win. You just have to be able to prove that it is, and be willing to fight for it.
@Yes, he was stupid
"(4) i am curious as to what they were doing in his house and why they would have stolen/confiscated other property legally owned there. Illegal search and seizure comes to mind."
They probably went into his house on a search warrant, on the grounds that since he had used one illegal weapon, what if he had more?
@Dan Paul: @Kimo 50%=F
"I hate to correct you but one of the major reasons why we here in the USA HAVE the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the existing government from taking away our other rights. Kind of tough to do now with only SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons and no privately owned functioning tanks (sigh, we'll figure something out soon)"
I know at least one guy with a functioning tank. Main gun works, too. Admittedly, it's a WWII antique, but the thing works fine, and according to NY State law, (where he has said tank) he can actually legally purchase ammunition for it and fire it...provided the ammo is incendiary, making it a giant flare gun.
Personally, i think he deserved what he got- if not more. I don't like extensive restrictions on what you can own, but there are some categories that have only one purpose, that being anti-personnel. A pistol you can take to the range and do target shooting with, but a sawed-off doesn't really add anything to the experience at the range that a regular shotgun wouldn't work for.
One other thing people overlook with the recent Supreme Court ruling: it says you can't be stopped from owning pistols with a blanket prohibition. However, it DOES say that you can be stopped for other reasons, such as criminal record or mental illness. In addition, it says that you can be required to submit information to own a gun, such as fingerprints, and that you can be required to register all guns with the government. States currently have a mix of rules on this, some (such as NY) requiring a permit to even own pistols, and making you jump through references and other hoops to get it, while in others, such as Florida, you can own damn near anything you want, it seems, so long as it's not prohibited at the federal level. Even getting a carry-conceal for a pistol is as simple as giving them your finger prints and a small fee that covers your criminal records check and your mental health background check.
"Less guns = less gun crime (FACT)"
That only works in an area that does not have guns. Somewhere like the US, where we already have plenty of guns around, that will fail because the criminals already have access to the guns. In most US jurisdictions that introduce more lenient gun laws, (at least those that I've seen records for) the violent crime rates, in particular for gun crime, tend to drop. Why? Well, that's because the police aren't there to protect in most cases, they're there to clean up afterwards. Hell, lots of them will admit this, especially in most Criminal Justice classes.
What's going to stop more crime: no legal guns on people, and lots of cops who get there too late, or legal guns on 1 out of every 10 people, and lots of cops who get there too late?
Flame because I know people are going to hit me for this one.