• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    While that seems excessive to me, and I have 40+ guns, we don’t get to talk about “need” when discussing rights.

    Think on it folks. Gun ownership is the only right outlined in the Constitution where people talk about “need”. That’s a bad path to start down.

    (And for anyone wanting to argue to “rights” angle, the 2A exists and the courts uphold it as an individual right. Those are facts. We can discuss them, but ATM they are not open to debate as facts.)

    And just for fun, no I cannot maintain, shoot, gunsmith, whatever, that many. I’m basically at my personal limit for what I can actually use. Still want a lever gat though!

    • norbert@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m of the same mind really. I don’t even have an issue with someone owning 280 guns tbh. Collections are a thing and quality guns hold their value extremely well. Obviously someone under investigation for multiple homicides shouldn’t have full access to his 280 guns but I also kind of think they should let him sell them; they’re his and he’s entitled to adequate legal representation (which is expensive).

      "The defense’s motion was filed in response to a prosecution motion asking the court to allow the transfer of Heuermann’s guns and other firearm items to the Nassau County Police Department…the defense cited precedent in their motion, stating, ‘When property is no longer needed as evidence, the government must establish, in an appropriate proceeding, an independent interest to justify any further retention’ and reminded the court that prosecutors said that they no longer needed the property as evidence. "

      AFAIK his MO didn’t involve shooting so the guns aren’t that relevant, he’s not been convicted of anything, pigs just want the guns .