Ban on ‘assault weapons’ – Constitutional?

[konradv]

Why not a ban?

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

It's constitutional, because it's the right of the "people" to bear arms. It does not make it a "person"al right as in other amendments or proscribe the banning of particular weapons, as they are not a persons either. As long as there is no blanket prohibition of all firearms, it would seem to be constitutional on the basis of the "general welfare" and the right of people to feel secure. After all, the 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why not a ban?

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

It's constitutional, because it's the right of the "people" to bear arms. It does not make it a "person"al right as in other amendments or proscribe the banning of particular weapons, as they are not a persons either.

Heller inarguably makes the 2nd a personal, individual right.

As long as there is no blanket prohibition of all firearms, it would seem to be constitutional on the basis of the "general welfare" and the right of people to feel secure

Both Heller and McDonald negate this in that they ruled that a ban on handguns was unconstitutional on its own, regardless of the availability of other guns.

Please try again.

 

[Dragon]

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

From District of Columbia v. Heller. Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Most likely an assault-weapon ban would be found constitutional, based on the above.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

From District of Columbia v. Heller. Source: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Most likely an assault-weapon ban would be found constitutional, based on the above.

What, exactly, in the above passage leads you to that conclusion, and how?

 

[Dragon]

What, exactly, in the above passage leads you to that conclusion, and how?

The last sentence. You may argue that an assault weapon is not a "dangerous and unusual" weapon, but at least in regard to the last word you are incorrect on the facts. The Heller decision, while it affirmed the 2A as an individual right, specifically permits the government to impose bans on many weapons, as well as to impose restrictions on the use and possession of weapons that are not banned.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What, exactly, in the above passage leads you to that conclusion, and how?

The last sentence. You may argue that an assault weapon is not a "dangerous and unusual" weapon, but at least in regard to the last word you are incorrect on the facts.

An 'assault weapons' is no more dangerous or unusual than any other gun.
So much for that.

 

[DaGoose]

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.

Hmmmm.....you wanna show me where in the Constitution it says that?

Arms are arms. You want a definition look it up in the dictionary.

If I take the 2nd Amendment at face value (the way it was written) then I have the Constitutional Right to own guns, grenade launchers, tanks, flame throwers and yes, even bombs.

You don't like it? Then prove me wrong using only words from the CONSTITUTION. Not yours or anyone else's interpretation of it.

 

[Dragon]

An 'assault weapons' is no more dangerous or unusual than any other gun.

One could argue to the contrary, in that it is a military-grade weapon, and hence falls into the same general category as a machine-gun, a hand grenade, a tank, etc.

(Of course, if the 2A still existed for its original stated purpose, those are the exact weapons whose possession it WOULD protect, but I'm going by the Amendment as reinterpreted by the Court to protect a completely different right altogether, which, whether I agree or not, is the law of the land at this point.)

It's clear enough that the 2A as reinterpreted would allow the banning of assault RIFLES (i.e., military weapons that are selectable between sem- and full-auto). It's not quite as clear that such a rifle with the full-auto feature disabled is bannable, but I'm expressing an opinion that it probably would be, if nothing else on the basis that re-enabling the full-auto option would not be that difficult.

Heh -- here's a nice trivia question for anyone interested. Who first coined the term "assault rifle" and to what weapon did it apply?

 

[eflatminor]

An 'assault weapons' is no more dangerous or unusual than any other class of gun.
So much for that.

True! In fact, the vast majority of firearms that the lefties like to call "assault weapons" are LESS dangerous than hunting rifles. The former tend to be in .223 caliber, the latter tend to use larger more power 30 caliber rounds. Either can can be semiautomatic (that's easy) and/or made to hold a magazine of any capacity (also easy). The only thing that makes an "assault weapon" evil is, apparently, the way it looks. In fact, let's allow an 'expert' explain what makes assault weapons evil:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U]Carolyn McCarthy - YouTube[/ame]

So, the people writing these laws are unable to describe what makes a firearm an "assault rifle", then they lie about them being used by gangs (simply not true) and lastly, they don't know that rounds are held in a magazine, not a clip. More central planning please!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Why do you need assault weapons in the first place? All they are is semi-automatic to automatic guns that throw massive amounts of ammo down range.

If you can't hit your target while hunting in the first 3 shots, you deserve to go home hungry.

 

[Nosmo King]

Allow me to tell my story.

I was not raised around guns. My father was not a hunter. I do live in an area where hunting is as big as skiing is in Vail, but I never hunted and never fired a weapon. Until I turned 54.

My town has been devastated by economic misfortune. When I was a kid, there were plenty of jobs. Steel mills, refractories, potteries, brick yards, power plants, and all the service industries that go along with them. Times were good. People had money.

But in the last twenty years, the downturn has taken its toll. There are now derelict houses, crime and an influx of people who did not grow up here but are here selling drugs and committing violent crime.

Even my neighborhood (I bought my home in 1990) has deteriorated and there are daily reports of domestic violence, break ins and home invasions.

So, I sought help to chose a personal defense weapon. All those I asked about it were helpful, knowledgeable and friendly. They, to a man, suggested I buy a shotgun.

So I did. I bought a Mossberg 12 gauge pump action tactical shotgun. I bought it for its ease of use, its effectiveness and its fire power.

I did not buy an automatic pistol with a high capacity clip. I feared that if such a weapon were stolen from my house, it could easily be used in a crime owing to its conceal-ability and its ability to fire many many rounds at a high rate of speed.

I know that my shotgun cannot be used efficiently as a hunting weapon. But I also know that my shotgun is hardly concealable.

My concern is the weapons that can be used in committing crimes. Such weapons, in my opinion, were designed to kill many people quickly. My shotgun could kill many people quickly, but folks would, at least, know that I've brought it into a place it should not be.

Concealable weapons are a blight and used frequently when violent crimes are committed. And that's my objection to them. They were designed with a criminal intent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Hmmmm.....you wanna show me where in the Constitution it says that?
Arms are arms. You want a definition look it up in the dictionary.

Actually, no - when dealing with an issue like this, you look up case law, if any.

Fortunately, that case law exists.
"Arms" in the context of the 2nd was defined by the court to mean any weapon "of common use" and "part of the ordinary equipment" that was suitable for service in the militia.

You can ignore this if you want, but it -is- the current legal holding, and so, in a discussion of this topic, you do so at your peril.

 

[eflatminor]

Why do you need assault weapons in the first place? All they are is semi-automatic to automatic guns that throw massive amounts of ammo down range.

If you can't hit your target while hunting in the first 3 shots, you deserve to go home hungry.

Because the 2nd amendment isn't about duck hunting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Allows me to tell my story...

I'll take this as a "no" to the question I asked.
Thank you.

 

[DaGoose]

An 'assault weapons' is no more dangerous or unusual than any other class of gun.
So much for that.

True! In fact, the vast majority of firearms that the lefties like to call "assault weapons" are LESS dangerous than hunting rifles. The former tend to be in .223 caliber, the latter tend to use larger more power 30 caliber rounds. Either can can be semiautomatic (that's easy) and/or made to hold a magazine of any capacity (also easy). The only thing that makes an "assault weapon" evil is, apparently, the way it looks. In fact, let's allow an 'expert' explain what makes assault weapons evil:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U]Carolyn McCarthy - YouTube[/ame]

So, the people writing these laws are unable to describe what makes a firearm an "assault rifle", then they lie about them being used by gangs (simply not true) and lastly, they don't know that rounds are held in a magazine, not a clip. More central planning please!

Fuck you. I'm a lefty. Don't you believe that FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms should be Constitutional?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you need assault weapons in the first place? All they are is semi-automatic to automatic guns that throw massive amounts of ammo down range.
If you can't hit your target while hunting in the first 3 shots, you deserve to go home hungry.

So... your answer to my question is "no".
Thank you.

 

[DaGoose]

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.

Hmmmm.....you wanna show me where in the Constitution it says that?
Arms are arms. You want a definition look it up in the dictionary.

Actually, no - when dealing with an issue like this, you look up case law, if any.

Fortunately, that case law exists.
"Arms" in the context of the 2nd was defined by the court to mean any weapon "of common use" and "part of the ordinary equipment" that was suitable for service in the militia.

You can ignore this if you want, but it -is- the current legal holding, and so, in a discussion of this topic, you do so at your peril.

I'm sure they had case law to uphold slavery and Jim Crow laws. Are you saying you agree with that?

 

[eflatminor]

Fuck you. I'm a lefty. Don't you believe that FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms should be Constitutional?

Another ad hominen from a lefty...and aren't we all just shocked.

Anyway, fully automatic firearms are 100% Constitutional today. Lots of civilians have them.

Fail much?

 

[M14 Shooter]

An 'assault weapons' is no more dangerous or unusual than any other gun.

One could argue to the contrary, in that it is a military-grade weapon, and hence falls into the same general category as a machine-gun, a hand grenade, a tank, etc.

You could try, but you would be factually inaccurate, and so your argument would be unsound.
'Assault weapoons' are neither "dangrous" or "unusual" as the terms are used.

Of course, if the 2A still existed for its original stated purpose, those are the exact weapons whose possession it WOULD protect, but I'm going by the Amendment as reinterpreted by the Court to protect a completely different right altogether, which, whether I agree or not, is the law of the land at this point.

Nothing in Heller eliminates the 'original stated purpose' of the 2nd Amemdment.

Heh -- here's a nice trivia question for anyone interested. Who first coined the term "assault rifle" and to what weapon did it apply?

Germans. StG44

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmmmm.....you wanna show me where in the Constitution it says that?
Arms are arms. You want a definition look it up in the dictionary.

Actually, no - when dealing with an issue like this, you look up case law, if any.

Fortunately, that case law exists.
"Arms" in the context of the 2nd was defined by the court to mean any weapon "of common use" and "part of the ordinary equipment" that was suitable for service in the militia.

You can ignore this if you want, but it -is- the current legal holding, and so, in a discussion of this topic, you do so at your peril.

I'm sure they had case law to uphold slavery and Jim Crow laws. Are you saying you agree with that?

Red herring. My statement stands.