[frankfrankfrank]

Regardless of what one thinks of guns, it is technically is still legal to both keep and bear the arms that include a long barrel rifle as well as any amount of ammunition one wants, it is actually the state government in this case that is in gross violation of the Constitution’s law prohibiting the government infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Just because an illegal law is passed does not nullify and superior law or right; for example, just because CA were to one day decide that freedom is illegal or, inversely, involuntary servitude is now legal, does not only not negate the God given right to freedom, nor does it even negate an inferior amendment to the Constitution barring such an abuse of freedom.

[taurath]

Are there any reasonable curtailments of that right? I'm sure its a cliche but whats the difference between owning a LMG and a bazooka?

[post_break]

I think you can still own both. The bazooka will need a tax stamp for each round if I’m not mistaken. I believe there are still transferable m79 grenade launchers and there are definitely M16 under barrel attachments you can buy.

[lumost]

From a legal standpoint, has any limit been placed on the second ammendment? could someone/has someone sued on the claim they should have access to WMDs?

[nemo44x]

There is a distinction between a “device” and an “arm”. This is why there is no constitutional right to own a WMD like a nuclear bomb or chemical bomb. Rocket launchers are considered “destructive devices” and you can buy those as well as the munition for it. Good luck getting one though.

However, if you go through proper channels it’s amazing what you’re allowed to own. In some states you can not only own a tank (that’s the easy part - you can even import one if the guns are disabled) but could also have it stay equipped with its standard issue .50cal gun! You won’t be allowed to drive it on public roads though. They are also cost prohibitive.

Hell, you can buy fighter jet if you’d like. But it has to be demilitarized which although still fun to fly would sort of limit your ability to maintain air superiority against a properly provisioned force.

[seabird]

Chemical, biological, nuclear, and anti-aircraft weapons are off-limits according to federal law. These rules have been enforced against people with terrorist intentions, but I would imagine any private citizen who believes they should be able to have them and can actually acquire them doesn't really feel the need to bother with fighting the law so long as they don't use them.

[AuthorizedCust]

You could be right. The problem is to get there, you’ll need to endure a lengthy court process and enormous legal bills, plus you’ll live a long time in uncertainty.