Ban on ‘assault weapons’ – Constitutional?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by M14 Shooter, Jan 20, 2012.

  1. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    12,505
    Thanks Received:
    842
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,105
    In Heller, the court struck the DC ban on handguns
    In McDonald, the court applied the Heller decision to the states and struck the Chicago ban on handguns.

    In both instances, the court struck the bans absent any consideration of rational basis, intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny – in effect, they ruled that bans on handguns, on their face, violate the 2nd amendment.

    Handguns are, by far, the class of firearm most often used in crime.
    Washington DC and Chicago have crime rates considerably higher than the average across the rest of the US.

    Given all this, can you present an argument that a ban on ‘assault weapons’, used –far- less often in crimes across a –considerably- larger area, is constitutional?
     
  2. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    18,391
    Thanks Received:
    1,996
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,153
    I do not see it as constitutional from the standpoint of being "assault weapons"..

    But when you add in the need for assault weapons, (which there is none in my eyes) and add in the danger of them and take into consideration a states right to enact laws to protect the safety of the citizen.....I see it as consitutional.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. 52ndStreet
    Offline

    52ndStreet VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,829
    Thanks Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +138
    Any "infringement" on any citizens "rights to bear arms" , can and will be considered unconstitutional. An assault weapons ban is an infringement on your right as a citizen to
    bear that perticular arms, and can and is to be considered unconstitutional.
    Therefore, an Assault weapons ban is unconstitutional.
     
  4. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    19,465
    Thanks Received:
    2,402
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +2,843
    The fools who make the rules don't even know what a so-called assault weapon is. They think it's especially dangerous if it has a bayonet lug. How many people have been bayoneted to death recently? The irony is that the government's chief law officer sent 2,000 assault weapons to Mexico, one of which ended up killing a Border Patrol officer.
     
  5. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    18,391
    Thanks Received:
    1,996
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,153
    I dont disagree with this argument....
    But I do believe the actual "need" for an assault weapon may water that argument down.
    Is it unconstitutional to ban a tank? A P-51D heavy with 2x1000 eggs, 6 HVAR's and both cannons and BB's for personal enjoyment?
     
  6. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist "Remain Calm People!" Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    20,771
    Thanks Received:
    4,381
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Location:
    Trinity Site
    Ratings:
    +4,991
    WTF is an "assault weapon"? A weapon you commit assault with? I look through gun ads sometimes and I don't recall them ever being listed.
     
  7. 52ndStreet
    Offline

    52ndStreet VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,829
    Thanks Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +138
    You can not factor into 2nd amendment law the issue of "a need" for any perticular weapon,
    or if they present a danger, all weapons present a danger. "A need" or not a "Need" for
    a perticualr weapon is irrelevent, and not the issue here. The amendment clearly states that" the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon." Any ban by any state is an infringement of that right to have that weapon, irregardless of needs or danger they may pose.

    There may not be a need in your eyes, or a Judges eyes or a politicians eyes, but you people are irrelevent when it comes down to what the amendment says , "that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon."
    Some one else may see a need for an assault weapon in case of civil war or social upheaval.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
  8. Starbuck
    Offline

    Starbuck Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    60
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +4
    Why not a ban?

    For decades we had a ban of marriage between a black man and a whit woman: even that we said that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Some states, have a ban on marriage between same sex couples, and others not. If we can ban some type of marriage between two consenting adults, then, we can ban some type of firearm.
     
  9. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    12,505
    Thanks Received:
    842
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,105
    What, exactly, does that mean?
    The courts, in the cases I cited, struck two bans based on this argument.
    Please give it another shot.
     
  10. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    12,505
    Thanks Received:
    842
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,105
    P-51Ds (or any other model of P51) do not mount cannon.
     

Share This Page