Ban on ‘assault weapons’ – Constitutional?

I think we are largely in agreement now. I agree that under Heller and the Chicago case blanket handgun bans are generally unconstitutional. However, I feel quite comfortable disagreeing with the SC here. I think it's perfectly appropriate, if largely idle, for ordinary citizens to develop their own constitutional interpretations independently of operative Supreme Court rulings.

I agree that assault weapons can be used for legal purposes, and for self defense. I have no idea how often they are and how often they are used for other purposes. I have no idea whether the current Supreme Court would strike down an assault weapon ban and I doubt they do either. In any event I doubt they would argue that assault weapons aren't more dangerous than non-automatic handguns. From what little I know of guns it seems easily demonstrated that assault weapons are generally, though not uniformly, more dangerous than other types of handguns in the sense that they can be used to shoot people more rapidly.

In any event, regardless of what the Supreme Court decides in the future, current assault weapons bans must be given the presumption of constitutionality and duly enforced.

Is someone seriously talking about another AWB? you are aware that the AWB sundowned, right?

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen

When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.

O, when she is angry she is keen and shrewd; / She was a vixen when she went to school, / And though she be but little, she is fierce. — Shakespeare

Don't judge me until you have walked a mile in my heels. -- J

Poor thing. To die and never see Brooklyn. -- Anne Sexton

Yes:

Richard Lugar
Richard Lugar Voices Support For Assault Weapons Ban (VIDEO)

Dianne Feinstein
Sen. Feinstein On Assault Weapons Ban: "I Wouldn't Bring It Up Now" | Video Cafe

Carolyn McCarthy
McCarthy seeks ban on weapon used in Arizona

Joe Biden
Joe Biden on Gun Control

Eric Holder
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

LA Mayor Villaraigosa
L.A. mayor and police chief back federal ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines - latimes.com

NY Mayor Bloomberg
The PJ Tatler » Mayor Bloomberg, States

Chuck Schumer
Senator Charles E. Schumer

There are LOTS more, I could go on...but I think you get the idea.

Actually, Breyer's dissent in Heller (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf) notes that there are a number of jurisdictions in the US with active assault weapons bans. Certainly, there's no talk of new federal legislation.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1939 that a weapon must be of use , in use or previously used by the military to be protected by the 2nd Amendment. Supposed " assault weapons" are in fact in use by the military so are in fact protected by the 2nd Amendment.

A tank is not an individual arm and as such is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. An Air craft is also not an individual arm and again not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

Details unfold in shots fired at White House - Yahoo! News

__________________
“My people are going to learn the principles of democracy the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will, every man can follow his own conscience provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him act against the liberty of his fellow men.”
~ Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Heller is predicated on two legal theories: ‘original understanding’ of the Amendment at the time of its ratification – as the Framers left little, if any, evidence on the subject – and the doctrine of the right to ‘self-defense’:

Indeed, just as the right to privacy prohibits the banning of abortions, so too does the right to self-defense establish the individual right to bear arms, as opposed to a collective right.

Heller also reaffirmed Miller, in the understanding of ‘weapons in common use’:

Here the Majority in essence states that the NFA restrictions are Constitutional, or at least are likely to be upheld as such in a challenge. Un-Constitutional, therefore, would be restrictions on weapons in ‘common use’; imagine citizens today being called up for some type of civilian militia service – most would be armed with ARs, AK-type rifles, and other semi-automatic weapons some incorrectly perceive as ‘assault weapons.’

Consequently, the AWB of 1994, if made law again today, would obviously be un-Constitutional per Miller and Heller.

Save the Supreme Court, they do get to interpret it.

True and agreed, but you and other conservatives need to remember this when addressing such cases as Griswold/Roe/Casey, Plyler, Romer, and Lawrence.
Um, no – case law is the Constitution, the Constitution exists only on the context of its case law.

That’s the snag, there is no ‘original intent’ as to the Second Amendment, as in documents by the Framers written during the Foundation Era explaining what was intended. Hence Scalia’s necessity to contrive ‘original understanding’ to justify the ruling.

No, not ‘the military,’ but weapons in common use then – or now – where civilians might muster for militia service.

__________________
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943

Yanno..........

I don't really think that the Founding Fathers would have approved assault weapons if they knew what they are.

__________________
Everyone has a right to their own opinion? Bullshit, everyone has a right to their own INFORMED opinion. - Harlan Ellison

You can measure the patriotism of a citizen, not by how much they shout in support of their country, but rather by how much they KNOW about their country.
God is my Sensei..........

I disagree. The entire point of the 2nd was and is to ensure a Militia, separate and distinct from an organized Army exists in the "several" States. Supposed assault weapons are nothing more then semi automatic weapons that look like military weapons, the very weapons one would WANT in the militia. Most are easily modified to be full auto or selective fire, depending on make and model.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

Oh look! It's my favoprite fraud with one of her typically vapid and meaningless drive-by postings!!
Cleaned any good courthouses lately?

__________________
The dumbest statement ever made:

The bans violated the second amendment, and the courts ruling violated common sense.

__________________
"One guy TRIES to use shoe bomb and everyone at the airport now has to take shoes off. 31 school shootings since Columbine, but no change."
Michelle‏@MichelleLaw


I support repeal of Citizens United v. FEC and I support campaign finance reform!

"THE LIFE OF THE LAW HAS NOT BEEN LOGIC; IT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCE"
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
The Common Law, 1881

Generally? Given Heller, when do you suppose a blanket ban would be upheld?
Well, that's fine - -but the mission here is to create an argument that fits within current law. You can disagree with the ruling, but it maintains its force in the argument you are tasked to present.
Given your ignorance of the specifics of their operation and use, it will be nigh imposible for you to create a sound argument as to the constitutionality of a ban on them.
Think so? The court has declared the right to arms a fundamental, constitututionally protected right. As such, any restrictions on it, like all other such rights, will be put to a test of strict scrutiny, where the the restriction is held as -UN-consitutiuonal until the relevant state entity can show a compelling interest in affecting said restriction and that the restriction in question is the least restritcive means of achieving that end.

Sounds like you are unable to create the argument asked of you.
Fear not, for it is a dunting task, and you are not alone.

__________________
The dumbest statement ever made:

Don't worry - she won't be back.

__________________
The dumbest statement ever made:

Is there a point here?
if so, please elaborate?

__________________
The dumbest statement ever made:

Seems to me that 'assault weapons', being ideal for service in the militia, are -exactly- the kinds of weapons they intended to protect.

__________________
The dumbest statement ever made: