'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Various SCOTUS rulings that you haven't bothered to cite is what you mean.

 

[editec]

Nuclear weapons are NOT outlawed for citizens by the consitution according to many of USMB's resident constitutional scholars .

STILL, the USA continues to insist tht Iran doesn't have the right to build them.

Go figure

 

[candycorn]

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

Quick question; who is the "regulator" in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? Surely it's not the government, right? After all, you said the reason for a militia in the first place is "The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government."

 

[FA_Q2]

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"

Bears repeating. It is such a simple concept but the reality is that reasons are moot. It does not matter why you wish to exercise your rights nor do you need to justify your doing so. A right is a right.

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?

That’s what the amendment process is for. The constitution is not a ‘living’ document in that it is not supposed to be changed on a whim without undergoing the arduous process of amending it. That is generally what is meant when people reject the living document claim. Usually when I hear people talking about the living document they are not referring to the amendment process but rather simply ignoring the constitution because the feel certain parts are outdated or non-applicable. The answer is not ignoring it but actually amending it. As for the topic at hand, amending the second is nigh impossible in this climate. I would like to see amendment passed that defines arms though to make all this hogwash more clear. Is a nuclear bomb an ‘arm?’ Certainly not. How about a shoulder fired rocket? RPG?

Yes, there needs to be more clarification on where the line is drawn because weapons are so much more complex and varied today.

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.

Various SCOTUS rulings that you haven't bothered to cite is what you mean.

They were cited in this thread. Please go back and look at previous posts. The main decision that applies here is well known anyways: Heller.

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

Quick question; who is the "regulator" in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? Surely it's not the government, right? After all, you said the reason for a militia in the first place is "The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government."

The state???
At least I thought that was the obvious answer. The regulated militia is, however, not a requirement for the right to bear arms. The two are separate and a militia actually requires that separation as you need to bring your own arms to it. That means you already need to own a gun.

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?

If you believe that then you have no concept of modern warfare. There are far more weapons in the hand of Americans than there is in the military. Even more to the point, there is far more PROFICIENCY with those weapons as well. Most in the military are not well trained on the use of their weapons. Further, you simply cannot conquer an armed populous. Holding the territory takes far more than it is actually worth. Guerilla warfare from a determined local population is EXTREMELY effective. Even with all the modern toys that exist. Add to that the fact the military would be stripped bare as people left if ever called to attack their own neighborhoods.

No, there is a clear ability for the American people to fight back, there is simply no reason whatsoever for them to have to do so in these times. No matter how much someone may hate Obama or whoever is in the office we are not even close to that kind of desperation nor will we be for many decades.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Quick question; who is the "regulator" in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? Surely it's not the government, right? After all, you said the reason for a militia in the first place is "The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government."

Respective State.

 

[PratchettFan]

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 SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons. However, the 2nd amendment is not just one half a sentence. It includes regulation by the state. So until the SC provides an opinion which states otherwise, the state has the power to regulate the type, number and frequency of your weapons purchases. If you disagree, take it to the SC.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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"?

The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.

The second amendment does not say

A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says

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 did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.

 

[SayMyName]

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.

I listened to it very well. It is also in his latest book. Read the article below the video in which Scalia says that there were torts in existance at the time of the Bill of Rights being written that prevented "horrible" weapons from being carried about town, such as maces, executioner axes, etc., that would frighten people.

And before you go off...I am a 2nd Admendment supporter.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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 SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons. However, the 2nd amendment is not just one half a sentence. It includes regulation by the state. So until the SC provides an opinion which states otherwise, the state has the power to regulate the type, number and frequency of your weapons purchases. If you disagree, take it to the SC.

The word regulate does not mean the same as it did back then

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Oh, but there are. The 2nd amendment is just one sentence, but it is a complete sentence. It does not begin after the comma. The stipulation is the stated intent of the amendment. Which is not that you can have any weapon you want. The intent is a well regulated militia. You can't have a well regulated militia without the state having the power to regulate. So while the amendment does say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it does not say the right to keep and bear any arms a given citizen wants shall not be infringed.

If you wish to invoke the 2nd amendment, invoke it all.

 

[PratchettFan]

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 SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons. However, the 2nd amendment is not just one half a sentence. It includes regulation by the state. So until the SC provides an opinion which states otherwise, the state has the power to regulate the type, number and frequency of your weapons purchases. If you disagree, take it to the SC.

The word regulate does not mean the same as it did back then

Yes, it does. If you disagree, take it to the SC. Until then, the 1st amendment gives you the right to complain to your heart's content - while the state regulates.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason.

 

[candycorn]

Quick question; who is the "regulator" in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? Surely it's not the government, right? After all, you said the reason for a militia in the first place is "The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government."

Respective State.

Isn't that what the national guards are; the state "militias"?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Well, given that they are indeed banned in many areas I would say this statement is false on its face.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason.

That would be suicide

Even in their glory days during the revolution, militia forces were no match for regular Army

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason.

That would be suicide

Even in their glory days during the revolution, militia forces were no match for regular Army

True. However, my point was that once a "militia" takes up arms against the United States they stop being a militia and start being criminals.

 

[rightwinger]

A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason.

That would be suicide

Even in their glory days during the revolution, militia forces were no match for regular Army

True. However, my point was that once a "militia" takes up arms against the United States they stop being a militia and start being criminals.

I think the correct term is traitors

The founding fathers were very concerned about the ability of the masses to dispose of tyrannical government. That is the reason they gave them a very powerful weapon.......not the gun, but the vote

Been working for 235 years

 

[PratchettFan]

That would be suicide

Even in their glory days during the revolution, militia forces were no match for regular Army

True. However, my point was that once a "militia" takes up arms against the United States they stop being a militia and start being criminals.

I think the correct term is traitors

The founding fathers were very concerned about the ability of the masses to dispose of tyrannical government. That is the reason they gave them a very powerful weapon.......not the gun, but the vote

Been working for 235 years

Yes. A regular, non-violent revolution. Truly ingenius.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Courts have spoken. They have stated that a weapon must be of use to the Militia to be covered by the second ( 39 ruling) the weapon must be in use, of use or previously used by the military.

Heller affirmed that the right is an individual right separate and distinct from the State right to form militias.

What these means is the supposed assault weapon is in fact clearly covered by the 2nd Amendment, which also includes at least 30 round magazines.

Any effort to ban or limit them would require an amendment. Something the gun grabbers are not willing to do cause they know they would lose.

 

[PratchettFan]

The Courts have spoken. They have stated that a weapon must be of use to the Militia to be covered by the second ( 39 ruling) the weapon must be in use, of use or previously used by the military.

Heller affirmed that the right is an individual right separate and distinct from the State right to form militias.

What these means is the supposed assault weapon is in fact clearly covered by the 2nd Amendment, which also includes at least 30 round magazines.

Any effort to ban or limit them would require an amendment. Something the gun grabbers are not willing to do cause they know they would lose.

Again, this is false on its face. There are such bans in place and they have not been struck down by the courts.