'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

[Ernie S.]

Other restrictions or requirements might also be permissible. Licensing and registration of firearms. Safety classes, liability insurance requirements, etc. Joe Blow could still have his BFG-9000 but could wind up paying some hefty fees, licenses, and taxes.

Well, some of those restrictions could be Constitutionally problematic, it’s what the state can prove in support of its law enacting a restriction, not what sounds or seems reasonable.

Licensing and registration would likely manifest an undue burden, there is no evidence either would reduce crime. And registration could be construed as a 4th Amendment privacy rights violation.

Can the state clearly document that those who took a safely class have had fewer accidents than those who did not? And what would be the rationale of the state to establish liability insurance requirements? How would liability be determined, or is the state merely exhibiting animus toward gun ownership?

Examples of reasonable restrictions would be: prohibiting gun ownership of those adjudicated mentally ill, undocumented immigrants, and convicted felons. The state could provide documented evidence in support of such restrictions, as they contribute to a legitimate governmental interest.

Accidental death by firearms is usually less then 1000 people a year. Out of a Population of over 300 million and a weapon population of a similar number the incidence of accidental shootings is to low to justify requiring safety classes one must pay for.

I though would not mind a return to gun safety taught in school and else where.

There is no such thing as an accidental shooting. There are far too many negligent shootings, but a properly maintained and handled weapon does not discharge on it's own. The closest thing I have seen to accidental discharge was in a house fire where a loaded Colt 1911 went off in the flaming rubble that had been the den of a home. I almost exceeded the pucker factor that day, I tell you.
The home owner's negligence, namely falling asleep while cooking and storing the .45 with a round in the pipe. Caused the discharge.

 

[Darkwind]

exactly

So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?

Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"

Exactly right. There are no stipulations at all.

 

[nitroz]

 

[Vidi]

Well, some of those restrictions could be Constitutionally problematic, it’s what the state can prove in support of its law enacting a restriction, not what sounds or seems reasonable.

Licensing and registration would likely manifest an undue burden, there is no evidence either would reduce crime. And registration could be construed as a 4th Amendment privacy rights violation.

Can the state clearly document that those who took a safely class have had fewer accidents than those who did not? And what would be the rationale of the state to establish liability insurance requirements? How would liability be determined, or is the state merely exhibiting animus toward gun ownership?

Examples of reasonable restrictions would be: prohibiting gun ownership of those adjudicated mentally ill, undocumented immigrants, and convicted felons. The state could provide documented evidence in support of such restrictions, as they contribute to a legitimate governmental interest.

Accidental death by firearms is usually less then 1000 people a year. Out of a Population of over 300 million and a weapon population of a similar number the incidence of accidental shootings is to low to justify requiring safety classes one must pay for.

I though would not mind a return to gun safety taught in school and else where.

There is no such thing as an accidental shooting. There are far too many negligent shootings, but a properly maintained and handled weapon does not discharge on it's own. The closest thing I have seen to accidental discharge was in a house fire where a loaded Colt 1911 went off in the flaming rubble that had been the den of a home. I almost exceeded the pucker factor that day, I tell you.
The home owner's negligence, namely falling asleep while cooking and storing the .45 with a round in the pipe. Caused the discharge.

Remember that scene in True Lies where the Uzi ( was it an Usi? ) is falling down the stairs firing away and killing all the terrorists???

God that was funny.

For those that dont know. That can NEVER happen. Almost all modern firearms will NOT discharge when dropped.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Im going to put a disclaimer in front of my reply. I am playing devils advocate here. I have not in the past nor do I now nor will I ever support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.

Ok, Shooter, heres the ONLY arguement I have ever heard that actually made some sense.

Which is more important: The 1st or the 2nd amendment?

I would argue that they are equally important, one nor more than the other and even that they are complimentary, perhaps even symbiotic.

Yet, we have placed reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment have we not? It is illegal to walk into a crowded place and yell," FIRE!" for example. Child pornography, and other obscenities, time,place and manner restrictions and restrictions on what can and cant be broadcast on the public airwaves are other examples.

If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?




If you agree with the above, then the debate becomes about what is considered reasonable as oppsed to a "BAN ALL GUNS!" vs "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!" battle, which isnt a debate, in my opinion, but a stand off.

Why is that everyone who talks about the first Amendment ends up talking about fire? If we talk about religion do people insist on talking about the moon?

 

[Darkwind]

Accidental death by firearms is usually less then 1000 people a year. Out of a Population of over 300 million and a weapon population of a similar number the incidence of accidental shootings is to low to justify requiring safety classes one must pay for.

I though would not mind a return to gun safety taught in school and else where.

There is no such thing as an accidental shooting. There are far too many negligent shootings, but a properly maintained and handled weapon does not discharge on it's own. The closest thing I have seen to accidental discharge was in a house fire where a loaded Colt 1911 went off in the flaming rubble that had been the den of a home. I almost exceeded the pucker factor that day, I tell you.
The home owner's negligence, namely falling asleep while cooking and storing the .45 with a round in the pipe. Caused the discharge.

Remember that scene in True Lies where the Uzi ( was it an Usi? ) is falling down the stairs firing away and killing all the terrorists???

God that was funny.

For those that dont know. That can NEVER happen. Almost all modern firearms will NOT discharge when dropped.

No almost.....All of them will NOT discharge if dropped...

And yes, that was funny...but I was too busy looking at Jamie Lee Curtis.....hehe

 

[Vidi]

exactly

So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?

Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"

Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.

Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people? What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.

The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As for can assault weapons be banned...I believe that recently one of the more conservative Supreme Court justices has opened the door to this matter.

Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate | Fox News

I believe you didn't actually listen to what he said.

 

[Borillar]

So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?

Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"

Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.

Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people? What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.

The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?

Unless the government wants to explore regulatory roadblocks as an option to limit the number of these weapons in public hands, it would likely take a constitutional amendment to repeal or rewrite the 2nd amendment.

 

[Darkwind]

So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?

Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"

Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.

Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people? What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.

The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?

I think that the founders expected us to retain the common sense of decency that they enjoyed when they wrote the Constitution. It has been through the slow deterioration of morality and right and wrong that such things begin to appear. We have become a society of people who think that if it isn't going their way, they should just end it for everyone who disagrees. It is part of the "Me' Mentality.

I think that the founders would have stood up and said, we cannot curtail the rights and freedoms of the many, on the basis of the mental illness of the few.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you saying that if the assault weapons ban is unconstitional then nothing can be done about Assault weapons?

The very definition of an assault weapon makes it unbannable vis a via the current Supreme Court ruling and previous ones.

Then for what reason was Article V included in the constition?

To keep people like you amused.

 

[Darkwind]

Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"

Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.

Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people? What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.

The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?

Unless the government wants to explore regulatory roadblocks as an option to limit the number of these weapons in public hands, it would likely take a constitutional amendment to repeal or rewrite the 2nd amendment.

A constitutional amendment limiting the rights of the 2nd Amendment is not likely to pass.

The Constitution is NOT a living document.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can a pencil be considered an asault weapon if I decided to stab someone in the neck with it?

I mean after all.... a pencil cant kill without me at the other end of it

Is that a "clean" enough question?


BTW, that question got me kicked off the jury in a capital murder trial

No, but do pencils come in high-capacity, semi-automatic form?

They come fully automatic.

Pentel Twist-Erase® III Automatic Pencils .9mm, Assorted Colors, 2 Pack | Staples®

 

[Darkwind]

Can a pencil be considered an asault weapon if I decided to stab someone in the neck with it?

I mean after all.... a pencil cant kill without me at the other end of it

Is that a "clean" enough question?


BTW, that question got me kicked off the jury in a capital murder trial

No, but do pencils come in high-capacity, semi-automatic form?

They come fully automatic.

Pentel Twist-Erase® III Automatic Pencils .9mm, Assorted Colors, 2 Pack | Staples®

I should look for a pencil trebuchet.....lol

Oh, look!

 

[Vidi]

No, but do pencils come in high-capacity, semi-automatic form?

They come fully automatic.

Pentel Twist-Erase® III Automatic Pencils .9mm, Assorted Colors, 2 Pack | Staples®

I should look for a pencil trebuchet.....lol

Oh, look!

LOL I have got to get me one of those!

thatll hold back the hordes at my door!

 

[Borillar]

Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.

Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people? What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.

The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?

Unless the government wants to explore regulatory roadblocks as an option to limit the number of these weapons in public hands, it would likely take a constitutional amendment to repeal or rewrite the 2nd amendment.

A constitutional amendment limiting the rights of the 2nd Amendment is not likely to pass.

The Constitution is NOT a living document.

Of course it is. It has been amended 27 times. It didn't come down from Mt. Sinai written in stone tablets by God.

 

[there4eyeM]

Why are fully automatics banned, then?
They are only banned in 13 states. The rest allow them. As to why? The Court has not to my knowledge been ask to defend the ban in those States. They were made requiring a Federal license because of the crime sprees with tommy guns in the early 30's.

This does show precedent for legal regulation of weapon characteristics, and, so, could be used for magazine capacity, caliber, rate of fire, etc.

 

[there4eyeM]

Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They come fully automatic.

Pentel Twist-Erase® III Automatic Pencils .9mm, Assorted Colors, 2 Pack | Staples®

I should look for a pencil trebuchet.....lol

Oh, look!

LOL I have got to get me one of those!

thatll hold back the hordes at my door!

The Office Siege Weapon Series: The Pencil Trebuchet

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?

Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"

Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.

Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people? What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.

The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?

So get cracking on the amendment. Notice though that NONE of the supposed solutions include an amendment. The gun grabbers want to enact new laws to do it.