Ban on ‘assault weapons’ – Constitutional?

[M14 Shooter]

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?

 

[Jarhead]

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?

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.

 

[52ndStreet]

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?

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.

 

[whitehall]

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.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

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.

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?

 

[Mad Scientist]

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.

 

[52ndStreet]

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?

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.

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.

 

[Starbuck]

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

I do not see it as constitutional from the standpoint of being "assault weapons".

What, exactly, does that mean?

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.

The courts, in the cases I cited, struck two bans based on this argument.
Please give it another shot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

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.

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?

P-51Ds (or any other model of P51) do not mount cannon.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why not a ban?

Your task here is to, given the facts, argue how such a ban is constitutional.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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?

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.

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?

The term "arms" was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

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?

P-51Ds (or any other model of P51) do not mount cannon.

lol....I know some..not all..

you know more.....

How is this....

F6F-5 Hellcat heavy with 2x1000 bombs, 6HVAR's, cannons and BB's

 

[ladyliberal]

There a plenty of people, including four then-Justices who argued that the majority holding in Heller was not correct. Their arguments apply equally well to a ban on other classes of firearms.

The majority also sought to explain why they were not permitting free license to carry machine guns and the like (though less persuasively, in my opinion). The logic of their holding was essentially that machine guns were not generally useful in self-defense whereas handguns were. The majority did not address explicitly whether a ban on machine guns would be constitutional (such a ruling, irrelevant to the case at hand, would have been improper) but left every impression that they believed that such a ban would be permissible (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf).

The Heller case was probably the single greatest gun rights victory (and gun control loss) ever, but gun advocates still over-reach in citing it. The ruling struck down very few laws, and seemed to go out of its way to leave others untouched.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

I do not see it as constitutional from the standpoint of being "assault weapons".

What, exactly, does that mean?

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.

The courts, in the cases I cited, struck two bans based on this argument.
Please give it another shot.

I can't.

You asked my opinion, I offered it and you showed me how that did not stand up in court.

So I agree with you.

Sort of how a debate is supposed to work. Not just to confirm you are right, but to find out when you are wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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?

The term "arms" was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

We have US v Miller for this.
"Arms" includes weapons suitabkle for use in the militia, and part of the common, ordinary equipment of the day.
This excludes nuclear weapons, etc.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There a plenty of people, including four then-Justices who argued that the majority holding in Heller was not correct. Their arguments apply equally well to a ban on other classes of firearms.

That some justices voted against the decision mens nothing - the decision is in place and therefore stands until overturned. Until it is overturned, you do not have the luxury of ignoring it simple because it did not go 9-0.

The majority also sought to explain why they were not permitting free license to carry machine guns...

1: They said no such thing
2: Even if so, it is irrelvant to the issue of 'assault weapons', which are not machine guns.

Now, please present your argument that an AW ban would pass muster.

 

[ladyliberal]

There a plenty of people, including four then-Justices who argued that the majority holding in Heller was not correct. Their arguments apply equally well to a ban on other classes of firearms.

That some justices voted against the decision mens nothing - the decision is in place and therefore stands until overturned. Until it is overturned, you do not have the luxury of ignoring it simple because it did not go 9-0.

The majority also sought to explain why they were not permitting free license to carry machine guns...

1: They said no such thing
2: Even if so, it is irrelvant to the issue of 'assault weapons', which are not machine guns.

Now, please present your argument that an AW ban would pass muster.

I didn't ignore the majority decision in Heller, in fact I cited it. However, you did ask for an argument that an assault weapon ban would be constitutional. I continue to think that the minority opinion in Heller is such an argument.

I apologize for conflating machine guns and assault weapons, but I believe that my original statement, that the majority decision in Heller draws distinctions between various classes of firearms, still holds. The court seems to distinguish between weapons that are used often for self-defense and those that are used primarily offensively. While I have no experience with guns, my impression is that "assault" weapons are not considered primarily defensive weapons.

I believe you are in error in saying that the Heller majority opinion did not address machine gun bans. It reads in part:

We therefore read Miller [which they did not overturn] to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

That would certainly include machine guns. My impression is that the court deliberately avoided ruling on where the line between such constitutionally necessary and unnecessary weapons could be drawn, and specifically on whether assault weapons would necessarily be permissible.

 

[eflatminor]

Unconstitutional. Clearly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There a plenty of people, including four then-Justices who argued that the majority holding in Heller was not correct. Their arguments apply equally well to a ban on other classes of firearms.

That some justices voted against the decision mens nothing - the decision is in place and therefore stands until overturned. Until it is overturned, you do not have the luxury of ignoring it simple because it did not go 9-0.


1: They said no such thing
2: Even if so, it is irrelvant to the issue of 'assault weapons', which are not machine guns.

Now, please present your argument that an AW ban would pass muster.

I didn't ignore the majority decision in Heller, in fact I cited it. However, you did ask for an argument that an assault weapon ban would be constitutional. I continue to think that the minority opinion in Heller is such an argument.

Well, OK, but an argument that ends in defeat as it is contrary to current decisions.
The object here is to take the current decisions into account when forming your argument, which is why they were included/cited/described.

I apologize for conflating machine guns and assault weapons, but I believe that my original statement, that the majority decision in Heller draws distinctions between various classes of firearms, still holds. The court seems to distinguish between weapons that are used often for self-defense and those that are used primarily offensively. While I have no experience with guns, my impression is that "assault" weapons are not considered primarily defensive weapons.

"Assault weapons' are suitable for use in any of the usual andlegal ways a firearm might be used. They may not be as effective in a particular role as purpose-built firearms, but they are still suitable. Its hard to see how a weapon that is supposedly designed only to kill cannot be effective in self-defense situations.

I believe you are in error in saying that the Heller majority opinion did not address machine gun bans. It reads in part:

We therefore read Miller [which they did not overturn] to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

That would certainly include machine guns. My impression is that the court deliberately avoided ruling on where the line between such constitutionally necessary and unnecessary weapons could be drawn, and specifically on whether assault weapons would necessarily be permissible.

Excpet that machineguns - and to a significantly greater degree, assault weapons - ARE posessed by a significant number of citizens for lawful purposes - indeed, I read once that there are more machineguns in the hands of provate citizens than owne by the US military.

And so, even if your argument here does hold water for machineguns, it does not for 'assault weapons' as far more people have an use them for 'lawful purposes'.