'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by M14 Shooter, Jul 31, 2012.

  1. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,572
    Please explain how this supports your assertion that the SC said states can prohibit 'assault weapons'.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  2. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,804
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,845
    Here's the problem you cannot not get around. No state in the 50 U.S. sates can create a law that will violate the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice the only firearms protected by the Second Amendment are those suitable for military use.
     
  3. PratchettFan
    Offline

    PratchettFan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,238
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,706
    Both cases were limitations of the 2nd amendment. Miller indicated that the only class of weapon which could be protected under the 2nd amendment would be one of a militia-type. So a sawed off shotgun was not protected. Lewis dealt with an individual with a criminal background. Again, because such a person would not be in a militia, not protected. Both decisions were predicated upon the position of the SC that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to allow citizens to own any weapon they wished but rather for the state to maintain a well regulated militia. Neither of those decisions in any way restricted the authority of the state or federal governments in regulating those weapons. Both of those decisions were, in fact, affirmations of that authority.

    In Heller, the SC actually did something of a reversal from previous rulings by indicating that while the purpose of the 2nd amendment was the militia, the state could not restrict the ownership of weapons to only the militia. However, the court was very careful in Heller to state that this did not mean the government did not have the right to prohibit that ownership in terms of weapons deemed dangerous and unusual. It was mute on what that meant and thus left that to the states to determine.

    The only decision which in any way restricted the authority of the state to regulate was Heller, and in that case only to the extent that there could not be a complete ban of all weapons. Any interpretation beyond that requires reading language in those decisions which simply is not there.
     
  4. PratchettFan
    Offline

    PratchettFan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,238
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,706
    I don't need to get around anything. I don't think there is a state in the union which is not doing precisely that to some extent and the SC has yet to say they can't.
     
  5. PratchettFan
    Offline

    PratchettFan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,238
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,706
    The SC does not have to say they can. All it has to do is say nothing at all.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  6. PratchettFan
    Offline

    PratchettFan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,238
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,706
    Which part is that?
     
  7. PratchettFan
    Offline

    PratchettFan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,238
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,706
    I have done nothing? I see. Well.... you all enjoy your circle jerk.
     
  8. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,572
    You made the positive assertion that the SC said states could ban assault weapons.

    Show this to be true.

    When you cite Heller in response, be sure to explain how that citation supports your assertion that the SC said states can prohibit 'assault weapons'.
     
  9. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,572
    Run along now. Be sure to tuck that tail nice and tight.
     
  10. 9thIDdoc
    Offline

    9thIDdoc Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,470
    Thanks Received:
    701
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +2,319
    Government is required to pass laws that are Constitutional. Passing a law that is unconstitutional exceeds it's authority, is a violation of the public trust, and is probably a violation of civil rights (as it is with firearms). Illegal action certainly doesn't define anything.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

examples of military personal that agree with assult weapon bans