A sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'?

[turtledude]

Oh....so the fish in the net, and the animals in the snare....were allowed to live in peace and gently rereleased into the wild....got it.

you're dealing with a feeler, not a thinker

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"A sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'?"

Restrictions of 'assault weapons,' such as those found in New York's SAFE Act, are Constitutional, regardless how 'sound' the argument in favor of these restrictions may or may not be:

'In Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court found that the right to “keep and bear arms,” enshrined in the Second Amendment, was among those individual freedoms. But the Court also noted that the right was not unlimited. Drawing from postHeller rulings that have begun to settle the vast terra incognita left by the Supreme Court, this Court finds that the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act — including the Act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on large-capacity magazines — further the state’s important interest in public safety, and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights.'

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...from-the-united-states-district-court-for.pdf

A successful challenge to these and other similar laws, therefore, would be based on compelling enforcing jurisdictions to justify the regulation of 'assault weapons' pursuant to the settled Second Amendment doctrine that weapons determined to be 'in common use' are entitled to Constitutional protections:

'Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.' (DC v. Heller)

Where AR and AK/M platform semi-automatic rifles are clearly weapons 'in common use,' and are neither 'dangerous' nor 'unusual.'

 

[turtledude]

"A sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'?"

Restrictions of 'assault weapons,' such as those found in New York's SAFE Act, are Constitutional, regardless how 'sound' the argument in favor of these restrictions may or may not be:

'In Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court found that the right to “keep and bear arms,” enshrined in the Second Amendment, was among those individual freedoms. But the Court also noted that the right was not unlimited. Drawing from postHeller rulings that have begun to settle the vast terra incognita left by the Supreme Court, this Court finds that the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act — including the Act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on large-capacity magazines — further the state’s important interest in public safety, and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights.'

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...from-the-united-states-district-court-for.pdf

A successful challenge to these and other similar laws, therefore, would be based on compelling enforcing jurisdictions to justify the regulation of 'assault weapons' pursuant to the settled Second Amendment doctrine that weapons determined to be 'in common use' are entitled to Constitutional protections:

'Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.' (DC v. Heller)

Where AR and AK/M platform semi-automatic rifles are clearly weapons 'in common use,' and are neither 'dangerous' nor 'unusual.'

so what is your point. Heller's logic clearly prevents bans on people owning semi auto rifles (or select fire rifles for that matter) since they are neither unusually dangerous or uncommon

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"A sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'?"

Restrictions of 'assault weapons,' such as those found in New York's SAFE Act, are Constitutional, regardless how 'sound' the argument in favor of these restrictions may or may not be:

'In Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court found that the right to “keep and bear arms,” enshrined in the Second Amendment, was among those individual freedoms. But the Court also noted that the right was not unlimited. Drawing from postHeller rulings that have begun to settle the vast terra incognita left by the Supreme Court, this Court finds that the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act — including the Act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on large-capacity magazines — further the state’s important interest in public safety, and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights.'

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...from-the-united-states-district-court-for.pdf

A successful challenge to these and other similar laws, therefore, would be based on compelling enforcing jurisdictions to justify the regulation of 'assault weapons' pursuant to the settled Second Amendment doctrine that weapons determined to be 'in common use' are entitled to Constitutional protections:

'Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.' (DC v. Heller)

Where AR and AK/M platform semi-automatic rifles are clearly weapons 'in common use,' and are neither 'dangerous' nor 'unusual.'

so what is your point. Heller's logic clearly prevents bans on people owning semi auto rifles (or select fire rifles for that matter) since they are neither unusually dangerous or uncommon

You don't understand.

It's the role and responsibility of the lower Federal courts and state courts to interpret in good faith and understanding rulings of the Supreme Court with regard to the cases that come before them, such as gun control cases.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the lower Federal and state courts, per their interpretation and understanding of Heller/McDonald, holds that as long as a jurisdiction affords its residents access to some kind of firearm – handguns in particular – the restriction or prohibition of other types of firearms, such as so-called 'assault weapons,' will pass Constitutional muster.

And the problem is the Federal courts have been ruling consistently in this manner, allowing bans and restrictions provided a comprehensive ban of firearms is not enacted.

Consequently, it doesn't make any difference what you or anyone else 'thinks' Heller means, as the courts have already made their determination as to the meaning of Heller/McDonald: one is allowed to have a gun, but not necessarily any gun he wants, if the enforcing jurisdiction makes an 'in the public safety' argument.

Therefore, rather than challenging 'assault weapon' restrictions based on how the courts are currently interpreting Heller/McDonald, put instead the burden of proof on the enforcing jurisdiction to prove that AR and AK/M platform semi-automatic rifles constitute a weapon both 'dangerous' and 'unusual,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections, such as a sawed-off shotgun, where clearly the intent of a sawed-off shotgun is criminal and subject to justified prohibition, and the intent of an AR platform rifle, for example, is in no way 'criminal,' given the fact its sole use is sporting and self-defense.

 

[turtledude]

"A sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'?"

Restrictions of 'assault weapons,' such as those found in New York's SAFE Act, are Constitutional, regardless how 'sound' the argument in favor of these restrictions may or may not be:

'In Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court found that the right to “keep and bear arms,” enshrined in the Second Amendment, was among those individual freedoms. But the Court also noted that the right was not unlimited. Drawing from postHeller rulings that have begun to settle the vast terra incognita left by the Supreme Court, this Court finds that the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act — including the Act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on large-capacity magazines — further the state’s important interest in public safety, and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights.'

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...from-the-united-states-district-court-for.pdf

A successful challenge to these and other similar laws, therefore, would be based on compelling enforcing jurisdictions to justify the regulation of 'assault weapons' pursuant to the settled Second Amendment doctrine that weapons determined to be 'in common use' are entitled to Constitutional protections:

'Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.' (DC v. Heller)

Where AR and AK/M platform semi-automatic rifles are clearly weapons 'in common use,' and are neither 'dangerous' nor 'unusual.'

so what is your point. Heller's logic clearly prevents bans on people owning semi auto rifles (or select fire rifles for that matter) since they are neither unusually dangerous or uncommon

You don't understand.

It's the role and responsibility of the lower Federal courts and state courts to interpret in good faith and understanding rulings of the Supreme Court with regard to the cases that come before them, such as gun control cases.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the lower Federal and state courts, per their interpretation and understanding of Heller/McDonald, holds that as long as a jurisdiction affords its residents access to some kind of firearm – handguns in particular – the restriction or prohibition of other types of firearms, such as so-called 'assault weapons,' will pass Constitutional muster.

And the problem is the Federal courts have been ruling consistently in this manner, allowing bans and restrictions provided a comprehensive ban of firearms is not enacted.

Consequently, it doesn't make any difference what you or anyone else 'thinks' Heller means, as the courts have already made their determination as to the meaning of Heller/McDonald: one is allowed to have a gun, but not necessarily any gun he wants, if the enforcing jurisdiction makes an 'in the public safety' argument.

Therefore, rather than challenging 'assault weapon' restrictions based on how the courts are currently interpreting Heller/McDonald, put instead the burden of proof on the enforcing jurisdiction to prove that AR and AK/M platform semi-automatic rifles constitute a weapon both 'dangerous' and 'unusual,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections, such as a sawed-off shotgun, where clearly the intent of a sawed-off shotgun is criminal and subject to justified prohibition, and the intent of an AR platform rifle, for example, is in no way 'criminal,' given the fact its sole use is sporting and self-defense.

I don't understand your idiotic playing both sides of the fence, I certainly understand Heller. If you ever have the honor of discussing the second amendment with Akhil Reed Amar, let me know and he will tell you I understand this stuff inside and out

 

[Jarlaxle]

30 people die everyday from drunk driving....thats one death every 48 minutes. Let that sink in.

We need to ban alcohol before banning anything else.

Hold on there, guy! I own a bar AND I'm getting my FFL. Does everyone want to put me out of business?

You own a bar and serve the devils juice that kills 10's of thousands/year. You should be held responsible as well. I'm sending people to your bar to protest #alcoholkills

Would the protesters leave if he got them loaded?

 

[M14 Shooter]

"A sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'?"
Restrictions of 'assault weapons,' such as those found in New York's SAFE Act, are Constitutional, regardless how 'sound' the argument in favor of these restrictions may or may not be:

Oh look.... Clayton avoids the topic... again...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still no takers?

 

[M14 Shooter]

HelloooOOOOooo.....?
Seeking a discussion as to why the rifle on the OP should be banned....
Surely you ant-gun loons don't need to wade in the blood of innocents before having a discussion of the matter....?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still looking for that sound argument to support the desire that burns deeply in the souls of the anti-gun loons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

C'mon, boys - you KNOW you want to ban 'assault weapons -- why should this gun be banned?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Leafing through my latest American Rifleman, I see that Ruger has finally released its Precision Rifle.

Based on the AR-10 lower and available in .308, .243 and 6.5 Creedmor, it will accept 5-10- and-20- round M110, SR-25. DPMS and M-14 magazines. MSRP $1300

For those of you that support banning 'assault weapons" -- why should this rifle be banned?



(Yes, I know. Shhhh.)

It should be banned for looking ridiculous.

And scary oooooooooooooooh scary gun

 

[Ernie S.]

Leafing through my latest American Rifleman, I see that Ruger has finally released its Precision Rifle.

Based on the AR-10 lower and available in .308, .243 and 6.5 Creedmor, it will accept 5-10- and-20- round M110, SR-25. DPMS and M-14 magazines. MSRP $1300

For those of you that support banning 'assault weapons" -- why should this rifle be banned?



(Yes, I know. Shhhh.)

It should be banned for looking ridiculous.

And scary oooooooooooooooh scary gun

And black. Paint it in pastel rainbow hues and libbies will flock to the stores.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Leafing through my latest American Rifleman, I see that Ruger has finally released its Precision Rifle.

Based on the AR-10 lower and available in .308, .243 and 6.5 Creedmor, it will accept 5-10- and-20- round M110, SR-25. DPMS and M-14 magazines. MSRP $1300

For those of you that support banning 'assault weapons" -- why should this rifle be banned?



(Yes, I know. Shhhh.)

It should be banned for looking ridiculous.

And scary oooooooooooooooh scary gun

And black. Paint it in pastel rainbow hues and libbies will flock to the stores.

I think that is one of the UGLIEST guns I've ever seen in my life.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

The woman I'm dating is a liberal democrat who was afraid of guns and wanted them banned, however, after we began dating, I taught her firearms safety, showed her how a responsible owner keeps them in a safe when not being used and took her to a firing range to actually meet gun owners and the stringent rules at the range, she began shooting and now has expressed a desire to shoot something.....that explodes. I think I've created a monster.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The woman I'm dating is a liberal democrat who was afraid of guns and wanted them banned, however, after we began dating, I taught her firearms safety, showed her how a responsible owner keeps them in a safe when not being used and took her to a firing range to actually meet gun owners and the stringent rules at the range, she began shooting and now has expressed a desire to shoot something.....that explodes. I think I've created a monster.

 

[Ernie S.]

The woman I'm dating is a liberal democrat who was afraid of guns and wanted them banned, however, after we began dating, I taught her firearms safety, showed her how a responsible owner keeps them in a safe when not being used and took her to a firing range to actually meet gun owners and the stringent rules at the range, she began shooting and now has expressed a desire to shoot something.....that explodes. I think I've created a monster.

Look for "Tannerite" It's a binary explosive, legal everywhere but Maryland, I believe. It's inert until mixed. A 1 pound target will cost about 12 bucks and at 50 yards, you will feel a concussion. 10 pounds of the stuff will obliterate a car. It can't be set off with anything less than a supersonic round.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It should be banned because a democrat might buy it which means it might get used in a mass shooting. Come to think of it. Should members of the Democratic Party be put on givernment watch list.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Astonishing that this topic has not receives even ONE sound response.
All of you who want to ban 'assault weapons' - where are you?

 

[skookerasbil]

Not permitted to be sold in NewYorkistan........too scary.