'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Sep 26, 2007
37,247
10,484
1,340
Bridge, USS Enterprise
Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
 
Hmm...

I agree with you that assault weapon bans are BS, but...

What does this mean, exactly?

and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm

What are "traditional legal uses", specifically?
 
Hmm...
I agree with you that assault weapon bans are BS, but...
What does this mean, exactly?
and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm
What are "traditional legal uses", specifically?
In the reveant case, the court spoke specifically of self-defense - but, other clear examples are hunting and target shooting.
The AR-15 is suitable for any of these, save for the obvious purpose of hunting ducks/geese.
 
Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?
 
Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?
Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,

Please try again.
 
Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?
Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,

Please try again.

Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The founders didn't believe in standing armies. Each state had its own militia. Now we have a large standing Army, Reserves, and National Guard. The National Guard is the "well regulated militia" of today. Military troops are not allowed to carry their assigned weapons around town or even on military bases. What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?
 
Sure, if Congress says so, since "common usage" can't be used to include them.
 
Militias are not kept in place, they are called in times of need. In the times of the founding papers, this was the case and is to this day. The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government. If the people are not already armed in such a case, you wouldn't expect the very government that the people are rising up against arming them do you?

The people need the weapons needed to throw off a government ... In today's time that means assault weapons
 
False reasoning. The unorganized militia is subject to military call up at any time. The government can organize that militia any time it wishes.

Civic Virtue not militia weapons keeps our government in check.

No need exists for any citizen to have a guided missile frigate in his pool.
 
A guided missile frigate would make for a great conversation starter at the next family reunion.

Civic virtue. Really? How many tyrants in history have cared about civic virtue? They tend to lie to the population until they have enough power to execute the checkmate and take total power.

Personal gun ownership is the people holding the ultimate checkmate over a government that has overstepped its position
 
No one, me included, wants to have to use the second amendment for the purpose it was put in the document. But that I and many other Americans would and could enforce the will of the people on a run away government is something that I take pride in
 
The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?
Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,

Please try again.
Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it?
Read Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Be sure to take note of the part that says:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Now then --care to try again?
 
In America, civic virtue sets us aside from the tyrannies.

The Civil War should be an example for a far right weirdos who think they can stop our government in a shoot out.

The more Americans are active in politics, the more they can keep our country free.

A guided missile frigate would make for a great conversation starter at the next family reunion.

Civic virtue. Really? How many tyrants in history have cared about civic virtue? They tend to lie to the population until they have enough power to execute the checkmate and take total power.

Personal gun ownership is the people holding the ultimate checkmate over a government that has overstepped its position
 
Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

Assuming a weapon must fit all of these criteria, rather than just one of them, I wonder if the AR-15 can be considered 'in common use'. I don't think private ownership of that type of rifle is all that common; not vanishingly uncommon either, it's a question of just what constitutes common in this context. Does common use mean 5% of gun owners? 5% of the total population? Does military use count toward common use?

I lean away from banning the so-called assault rifles, I'm just trying to answer your question as to how it might be constitutional to do so.
 
Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,

Please try again.
Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it?
Read Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Be sure to take note of the part that says:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Now then --care to try again?

Thank you for the link. I stand corrected. I did note that licensing and registration of firearms was permissible.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top