Ban on ‘assault weapons’ – Constitutional?

[MikeK]

The only thing that an AK or similiar weopon is good for is killing other people.

Exactly!

What do you think was the purpose of the Second Amendment? The citizen needs to be able to defend himself against those who mean to enslave us or kill us and the best way to to that is to kill them first. So why deprive us of the most efficient means of doing that?

Weopons that are rapid firing semi-automatics with a 40 shot clip or more, are military weopons, no less than a tank or hand grenade.

You may rest assured the criminal element has access to these weapons so why should you and I not have access to them? Does it make sense to deprive the law-abiding citizen of the same kind of weapons he might be confronted with?

In the hands of a loon or gangster, they present a horrible danger to law enforcement officers as well as ordinery citizens.

That's right. And the problem is the loons and gangsters will not obey the anti-firearms laws. So you'd better be prepared to defend yourself against them.

It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

As a gun owner since I was 12, I do not like these weopons in the hands of the general public, as they represent a real danger. Just experianced that sort of thing in my neighborhood. Someone sprayed a car and home with a weopong that sounded like a buzz. 15 to 20 shots in a second or two. And the home was not someone involved in criminal activities at all. The police stated it just looked random. Oh, yes, a six year old boy grazed by one of the bullets. Since kits are readily available to converty many of these semi-automatics to full automatics, we are putting war weopons on the streets and in the hands of the loons.

This is America. Guns are an endemic part of our culture. The fact that you don't like it, and that street shootings sometimes take place, doesn't change our reality. Guns are here to stay and your lament is duly noted. But it won't do a bit of good.

 

[MikeK]

The only thing that an AK or similiar weopon is good for is killing other people.

Exactly!

What do you think was the purpose of the Second Amendment? The citizen needs to be able to defend himself against those who mean to enslave us or kill us and the best way to to that is to kill them first. So why deprive us of the most efficient means of doing that?

Weopons that are rapid firing semi-automatics with a 40 shot clip or more, are military weopons, no less than a tank or hand grenade.

You may rest assured the criminal element has access to these weapons so why should you and I not have access to them? Does it make sense to deprive the law-abiding citizen of the kind of weapons he might be confronted with?

In the hands of a loon or gangster, they present a horrible danger to law enforcement officers as well as ordinery citizens.

That's right. And the problem is the loons and gangsters will not obey the anti-firearms laws. So you'd better be prepared to defend yourself against them.

It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

As a gun owner since I was 12, I do not like these weopons in the hands of the general public, as they represent a real danger. Just experianced that sort of thing in my neighborhood. Someone sprayed a car and home with a weopong that sounded like a buzz. 15 to 20 shots in a second or two. And the home was not someone involved in criminal activities at all. The police stated it just looked random. Oh, yes, a six year old boy grazed by one of the bullets. Since kits are readily available to converty many of these semi-automatics to full automatics, we are putting war weopons on the streets and in the hands of the loons.

This is America. Guns are an endemic part of our culture. The fact that you don't like it, and that street shootings sometimes take place, doesn't change our reality. Guns are here to stay and your lament is duly noted. But it won't do a bit of good.

 

[The T]

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?

What is an assault weapon but a device that is meant to do bodily harm? Assault weapons aren't necessarily firearms.

 

[Charles_Main]

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?

Whether or not a Weapon is used often in Crime has no Bearing on it's Constitutionality. Strictly speaking even an Assault Weapon Ban is Unconstitutional, However Reasonable 2nd Amendment Advocates such as My self understand compromises are needed. I just don't think Assault Weapons should be it.

To me the most important reason for the 2nd Amendment is the Implied Ability of the American people to resist (with Arms) Tyranny if it ever comes to that. Not going to be easy to do with Shot Guns and Pistols, Assault Rifles will be needed.

Besides the law is it is is Silly. I Own an AR15 Right now that is Legal, But with about 10 Mins work I could have it rockin and Rolling and very Illegal.

 

[The T]

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?

Whether or not a Weapon is used often in Crime has no Bearing on it's Constitutionality. Strictly speaking even an Assault Weapon Ban is Unconstitutional, However Reasonable 2nd Amendment Advocates such as My self understand compromises are needed. I just don't think Assault Weapons should be it.

To me the most important reason for the 2nd Amendment is the Implied Ability of the American people to resist (with Arms) Tyranny if it ever comes to that. Not going to be easy to do with Shot Guns and Pistols, Assault Rifles will be needed.

Besides the law is it is is Silly. I Own an AR15 Right now that is Legal, But with about 10 Mins work I could have it rockin and Rolling and very Illegal.

Weapons are weapons despite the adjetive that proceeds it.

How about those that use such devices be prosecuted on intent to deprive liberty unlawfully?

 

[Charles_Main]

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?

What is an assault weapon but a device that is meant to do bodily harm? Assault weapons aren't necessarily firearms.

Assault Weapons are not necessarily Fire Arms? Are you for real? All Fire Arms are a Device for doing Bodily Harm to Others or animals. From Pistols to Assault Rifles. You can not try and say an AR15 that can go Full Auto isn't a protected Fire arm, but one that can only shoot as fast as I can pull the trigger is Legal.

You people do realize that Full Auto Is for Rookies anyways right? The US military standard issue is not Full Auto, Aimed Single Fire is much much more effective and deadly than Random Spray and Prey.

A madman can do as much Damage with his Daddies Lever action 30/30 as he can with a full Auto Assault Rifle. It is silly to pretend we can't have one but can have the other.

If you don't want people to have guns, then Change the Constitution the way it was meant to be, By Amendment. Stop trying back door tricks like Making Ammo Illegal for Legal Weapons. It smacks of lack Of Respect for the Constitution.

 

[The T]

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?

What is an assault weapon but a device that is meant to do bodily harm? Assault weapons aren't necessarily firearms.

Assault Weapons are not necessarily Fire Arms? Are you for real? All Fire Arms are a Device for doing Bodily Harm to Others or animals. From Pistols to Assault Rifles. You can not try and say an AR15 that can go Full Auto isn't a protected Fire arm, but one that can only shoot as fast as I can pull the trigger is Legal.

You people do realize that Full Auto Is for Rookies anyways right? The US military standard issue is not Full Auto, Aimed Single Fire is much much more effective and deadly than Random Spray and Prey.

A madman can do as much Damage with his Daddies Lever action 30/30 as he can with a full Auto Assault Rifle. It is silly to pretend we can't have one but can have the other.

If you don't want people to have guns, then Change the Constitution the way it was meant to be, By Amendment. Stop trying back door tricks like Making Ammo Illegal for Legal Weapons. It smacks of lack Of Respect for the Constitution.

Is a baseball bat, an AXE, Knife...a club...all weapons used to perform bodily assault if they are used for that purpose?

Why is it automatically assumed that assault weapons means firearms?

My point here I made a post ago...judge on intent of a person, prosecute the intent...NOT the weapon. Anything can be a weapon.

 

[candycorn]

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?

What is an assault weapon but a device that is meant to do bodily harm? Assault weapons aren't necessarily firearms.

Assault Weapons are not necessarily Fire Arms? Are you for real? All Fire Arms are a Device for doing Bodily Harm to Others or animals. From Pistols to Assault Rifles. You can not try and say an AR15 that can go Full Auto isn't a protected Fire arm, but one that can only shoot as fast as I can pull the trigger is Legal.

You people do realize that Full Auto Is for Rookies anyways right? The US military standard issue is not Full Auto, Aimed Single Fire is much much more effective and deadly than Random Spray and Prey.

A madman can do as much Damage with his Daddies Lever action 30/30 as he can with a full Auto Assault Rifle. It is silly to pretend we can't have one but can have the other.

If you don't want people to have guns, then Change the Constitution the way it was meant to be, By Amendment. Stop trying back door tricks like Making Ammo Illegal for Legal Weapons. It smacks of lack Of Respect for the Constitution.

I think he jumped the shark on that one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

why would i justify murder.

Why do you clean courthouses?
I mean other than your lack of an education or any useful skills?

lol.. i don't.

Oh... so were you demoted to the snack bar?

however, you should really stop attributing your lack of skills to me.

Still suffering form those delusions of relevance, eh?

 

[ladyliberal]

Why do you clean courthouses?
I mean other than your lack of an education or any useful skills?

lol.. i don't.

Oh... so were you demoted to the snack bar?

however, you should really stop attributing your lack of skills to me.

Still suffering form those delusions of relevance, eh?

I notice you've posted a few times since my post 88 in this thread. May I call your attention to it? In particular, I'm curious if the argument referenced meets your strict standards.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Given Heller, when do you suppose a blanket ban would be upheld?

As I said already, I don't know where the line would be drawn by the Supreme Court. It would permit handguns and disallow machine guns, I believe.

I thought you meant a blanket ban on handguns, that might be upheld.
Given the circumstances and specific of the striking of the handgun ban, why do you suppose a MG ban would be upheld?

Well, that's fine - -but the mission here is to create an argument that fits within current law. You can disagree with the ruling, but it maintains its force in the argument you are tasked to present.

I feel I must clarify something: I'm trying to have a conversation with you, not perform a task at your bidding.

Well, if you don't want to address thr question asked in the OP, you're really just avoiding the issue or offering a red herring. Its great that you want to have a 'conversation', but that's not what I'm looking for.

If you are judging the soundness of the argument that appears to be so. If a more objective authority were I think the result would be otherwise.

Huh. How is my judgment un-objective?
How does a judgement opposite mine qualify as 'objective'?

Think so? The court has declared the right to arms a fundamental, constitututionally protected right. As such, any restrictions on it, like all other such rights, will be put to a test of strict scrutiny, where the the restriction is held as -UN-consitutiuonal until the relevant state entity can show a compelling interest in affecting said restriction and that the restriction in question is the least restritcive means of achieving that end.

I was speaking of giving them the assumption of validity in enforcement, not in a court of law.

The convesation here pretty much revolves around the 'court of law' setting.

However, since you brought it up, there has been at least one decision on an assault weapons ban post-Heller: , Washington, D.C. Assault Weapons Ban Constitutional, Appeals Court Rules - Bloomberg

You might be surprised to learn that the court found (2-1) that strict scrutiny should not be applied, assault weapons bans should not be presumed unconstitutional post-Heller, and that the assault weapons ban in question was upheld. No doubt other courts will make other rulings, but perhaps at this point you might admit that it is possible to construct a defense of the constitutionality of assault weapons bans post-Heller, and in fact that people with credentials exceeding your own have done so.

Fascinating. Given the particulars of its ruling on the handgun ban - that the ban on the clas of firearms most often used in crime, especially those against police officers, violates the 2nd w/o consideration to any level of scrrutiny - this ruling is rather inconsistent in that it upholds a ban on a class of guns used considerably less often by applying a level of scrutinly onconsistent with the standing of the 2nd amendment.

Can you explain the reasoning for their inconsistency or do you accept the soundness of the ruling because it is convenient to do so?

Sounds like you are unable to create the argument asked of you.
Fear not, for it is a dunting task, and you are not alone.

I disagree. I believe I have constructed (or at least cited) just such an argument. I believe the argument is even quite meritorious, though you didn't ask it. While I shall take your word that I have been dunted, I remain undaunted.

That's interesting, given that I don't recall actually seeing any such argument from you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only thing that an AK or similiar weopon is good for is killing other people.

Except that a good number of them are also very good at competitve target shooting and hunting.

Weopons that are rapid firing semi-automatics with a 40 shot clip or more, are military weopons, no less than a tank or hand grenade.

Glad you think so - and in doing to, it will be hard, if not impossible to show that they are then not the sort of weapon the 2nd was intended to protect.

As a gun owner since I was 12, I do not like these weopons in the hands of the general public, as they represent a real danger.

Simple posession endangers no one.

Interesting that Jillian gives me neg rep for this post, and yet does absolutely nothing to show how it is unsound.

More uselessness from my favorite fraud.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The court has declared the right to arms a fundamental, constitututionally protected right. As such, any restrictions on it, like all other such rights, will be put to a test of strict scrutiny, where the the restriction is held as -UN-consitutiuonal until the relevant state entity can show a compelling interest in affecting said restriction and that the restriction in question is the least restritcive means of achieving that end.

Neither the Heller nor McDonald Courts made that determination, the Second Amendment is not considered a fundamental right, where voting is considered fundamental, for example. Consequently laws addressing firearms may be subject to any level of judicial review.

But I believe a rational basis review would be sufficient in most cases, as many gun restrictions are predicated on ignorance, incorrect information, or subjective emotionalism.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The court has declared the right to arms a fundamental, constitututionally protected right. As such, any restrictions on it, like all other such rights, will be put to a test of strict scrutiny, where the the restriction is held as -UN-consitutiuonal until the relevant state entity can show a compelling interest in affecting said restriction and that the restriction in question is the least restritcive means of achieving that end.

Neither the Heller nor McDonald Courts made that determination, the Second Amendment is not considered a fundamental right, where voting is considered fundamental, for example. Consequently laws addressing firearms may be subject to any level of judicial review.

From McDonald:

...
(d) The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States. Pp. 19-33.

(1) The Court must decide whether that right is fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149, or, as the Court has said in a related context, whether it is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721. Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ____, ____. Explaining that "the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" in the home, ibid., the Court found that this right applies to handguns because they are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to `keep' and use for protection of one's home and family," id., at ____, ____-____. It thus concluded that citizens must be permitted "to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense." Id., at ____. Heller also clarifies that this right is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and traditions," Glucksberg, supra, at 721. Heller explored the right's origins in English law and noted the esteem with which the right was regarded during the colonial era and at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. This is powerful evidence that the right was regarded as fundamental in the sense relevant here. That understanding persisted in the years immediately following the Bill of Rights' ratification and is confirmed by the state constitutions of that era, which protected the right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 19-22.

(2) A survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrates clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty. Pp. 22-33.

(i) By the 1850's, the fear that the National Government would disarm the universal militia had largely faded, but the right to keep and bear arms was highly valued for self-defense. Abolitionist authors wrote in support of the right, and attempts to disarm "Free-Soilers" in "Bloody Kansas," met with outrage that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms had been taken from the people. After the Civil War, the Southern States engaged in systematic efforts to disarm and injure African Americans, see Heller, supra, at ____. These injustices prompted the 39th Congress to pass the Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Congress, however, ultimately [**902]deemed these legislative remedies insufficient, and approved the Fourteenth Amendment. Today, it is generally accepted that that Amendment was understood to provide a constitutional basis for protecting the rights set out in the Civil Rights Act. See General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S. 375, 389[*3024]. In Congressional debates on the proposed Amendment, its legislative proponents in the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Evidence from the period immediately following the Amendment's ratification confirms that that right was considered fundamental. Pp. 22-31.

(ii) Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents argue that Members of Congress overwhelmingly viewed § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as purely an antidiscrimination rule. But while § 1 does contain an antidiscrimination rule, i.e., the Equal Protection Clause, it can hardly be said that the section does no more than prohibit discrimination. If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special — and specially unfavorable — treatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner. Pp. 30-33.

JUSTICE ALITO, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE KENNEDY, concluded, in Parts II-C, IV, and V, that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. Pp. 10-11, 33-44.

(a) Petitioners argue that that the Second Amendment right is one of the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." There is no need to reconsider the Court's interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases because, for many decades, the Court has analyzed the question whether particular rights are protected against state infringement under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Pp. 10-11.

(b) Municipal respondents' remaining arguments are rejected because they are at war with Heller's central holding. In effect, they ask the Court to hold the right to keep and bear arms as subject to a different body of rules for incorporation than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. Pp. 33-40.

(c) The dissents' objections are addressed and rejected. Pp. 41-44. JUSTICE THOMAS agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment makes

the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms that was recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ____, fully applicable to the States. However, he asserted, there is a path to this conclusion that is more straightforward and more faithful to the Second Amendment's text and history. The Court is correct in describing the Second Amendment right as "fundamental" to the American scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149, and "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and traditions," [**903]Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721. But the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which speaks only to "process," cannot impose the type of substantive restraint on state legislation that the Court asserts. Rather, the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are "`written to be understood by the voters.'" Heller, 554 U. S., at ____[*3025]. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what "ordinary citizens" at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 1-34.
...

... as many gun restrictions are predicated on ignorance, incorrect information, or subjective emotionalism.

Cannot agree more with this.