Griz44Mag
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 4,326
- Reaction score
- 4,386
- Location
- Republic of Texas, District of Krum
As so aptly stated on this forum so many times"BPS/Cabela's isn't going against the Constitution but simply setting cooperate policy which they have a right to do. Going by ATF guidelines a person subject to Federal firearms disabilities is not prohibited from owning a black powder muzzleloading firearm but a state or locality may view this differently. As to whether states and local governments can override the constitution or not to meet their perceived needs, well that discussion could go on forever and the only way to change anything is to vote and become active.
In the case of Galliher vs Cabela's in Ohio; “Black powder guns are fully-functional replicas of antique rifles, shotguns, or handguns and are considered by Ohio and a handful of other states to be equivalent to modern firearms for the purposes of purchase and possession laws, and are subsequently prohibited for violent convicted felons." In both cases the suits against BPS/Cabela's are civil suits and it's possible Federal, state and local laws may not be involved. Sort of like one suing the maker of an electric toothbrush if one broke off a front tooth while using it.
"You can train the ignorant, you can't fix stupid"