Originally Posted by Fellblade
Tanks make good examples. Simply explain that yes, a private civilian should have the right to own and operate a tank. Consider everything else that goes with tank ownership:
Tanks are expensive to buy. Do you know anyone who could afford one?
Tanks require maintenance. Who's your mechanic?
Tanks are expensive to operate. Fuel is already expensive and tanks use a LOT.
Tanks are heavy. They'll do extensive damage to road and the owner would be responsible for all property damage caused.
Limited availability. Know any good dealers? The 2A doesn't say our government needs to provide them for sale.
That should be a good start.
*edit: Happen to have military channel on. The program just said the Bradly costs $3.1 million and weighs in at 25 tons.
All that being true, there are some rather well-off individuals who own tanks and other armored vehicles here in the US. The other trick is getting the 'destructive device' license for the main guns, and, IIRC, every individual cannon shell/round.
See, for example, http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm
, Magazine Qs
, Knife laws
Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter
until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.
Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.
Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.