Why will the court uphold an 'assault weapon' ban?

[M14 Shooter]

In Heller, the court ruled that a ban on handguns – the kind of firearm most commonly used in gun-related violent crime – in Washington DC – a city with among the highest rates of violent crime in the US – violates the constitution under any standard of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.

Given that, on what grounds will the court uphold a nationwide ban on ‘assault weapons’, a class of firearm in common use across the country for lawful purposes, but virtually never used in gun-related violent crime?

 

[TNHarley]

I hope not. I plan on getting another tactical rifle in the next month

 

[Truthmatters]

in that decision they all said gun laws are constitutional

 

[nodoginnafight]

In Heller, the court ruled that a ban on handguns – the kind of firearm most commonly used in gun-related violent crime – in Washington DC – a city with among the highest rates of violent crime in the US – violates the constitution under any standard of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.

Given that, on what grounds will the court uphold a nationwide ban on ‘assault weapons’, a class of firearm in common use across the country for lawful purposes, but virtually never used in gun-related violent crime?

My personal opinion is that SCOTUS will never get a shot at ruling on an AWB. I don't think it is coming.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In Heller, the court ruled that a ban on handguns – the kind of firearm most commonly used in gun-related violent crime – in Washington DC – a city with among the highest rates of violent crime in the US – violates the constitution under any standard of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.

Given that, on what grounds will the court uphold a nationwide ban on ‘assault weapons’, a class of firearm in common use across the country for lawful purposes, but virtually never used in gun-related violent crime?

It's not exactly as you understand it SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER

SUMMARY

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a long-standing constitutional question about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

By a five to four margin, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home (emphasis ours). Accordingly, it struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a D.C. law that (1) effectively banned possession of handguns by non law enforcement officials and (2) required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business place or being used for lawful recreational activities.

According to the Court, the ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in a home be disassembled or locked made “it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” These laws were unconstitutional “under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” But the Court did not cite a specific standard in making its determination, and it rejected the interest-balancing standard; proposed by Justice Breyer, and a “rational basis” standard.

After the District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked, a group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms.


Question

Whether provisions of the D.C. Code generally barring the registration of handguns, prohibiting carrying a pistol without a license, and requiring all lawful firearms to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?


Conclusion
Decision: 5 votes for Heller, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 2

Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home.

The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer filed dissenting opinions, each joined by the other as well as Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a well-regulated state militia, not for other purposes even if they are lawful. Justice Breyer agreed with Stevens' argument but also stated that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any law regulating the use of firearms would have to be "unreasonable or inappropriate" to violate the Second Amendment. In Breyer's view, the D.C. laws at issue in this case were both reasonable and appropriate.

District of Columbia v. Heller | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why will the court uphold an 'assault weapon' ban?

In Heller,...

Why would it? The question is depending on how a ban is written, will they uphold it...

The Court will uphold a well written ban on Assault Weapons

 

[M14 Shooter]

In Heller, the court ruled that a ban on handguns – the kind of firearm most commonly used in gun-related violent crime – in Washington DC – a city with among the highest rates of violent crime in the US – violates the constitution under any standard of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.

Given that, on what grounds will the court uphold a nationwide ban on ‘assault weapons’, a class of firearm in common use across the country for lawful purposes, but virtually never used in gun-related violent crime?

It's not exactly as you understand it SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER

Here's the holding:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. 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. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Specify what I got wrong, show how I got it wrong, and then answer the question from the OP.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In Heller, the court ruled that a ban on handguns – the kind of firearm most commonly used in gun-related violent crime – in Washington DC – a city with among the highest rates of violent crime in the US – violates the constitution under any standard of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.

Given that, on what grounds will the court uphold a nationwide ban on ‘assault weapons’, a class of firearm in common use across the country for lawful purposes, but virtually never used in gun-related violent crime?

My personal opinion is that SCOTUS will never get a shot at ruling on an AWB. I don't think it is coming.

The GOP/Tea Party faction in the US House and/or the GOP in the US Senate might block one this year, but given a few elections and battles, it will happen. There will be more mass shootings and they will drive the debate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Specify what I got wrong, show how I got it wrong, and then answer the question from the OP.

In Heller, the court ruled that a ban on handguns – the kind of firearm most commonly used in gun-related violent crime – in Washington DC – a city with among the highest rates of violent crime in the US – violates the constitution under any standard of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.

Given that, on what grounds will the court uphold a nationwide ban on ‘assault weapons’, a class of firearm in common use across the country for lawful purposes, but virtually never used in gun-related violent crime?

It's not exactly as you understand it

In Heller the Court narrowly ruled an outright ban on handguns, of the kind enacted by D.C., violates the Constitution. The Court also ruled that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

How laws are written, how they are challenged, and arguments made to individuals on the Court at any specific time, determine more than pure or warped ideological arguments or readings of rulings/.

I think I answered the question in another separate post

Why will the court uphold an 'assault weapon' ban?

In Heller,...

Why would it? The question is depending on how a ban is written, will they uphold it...

The Court will uphold a well written ban on Assault Weapons

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Heller affirms it is an individual right and that weapons in COMMON USE are protected. Guess what? That means the supposed assault rifle is protected as it is in common use.

Just as in Heller where the Court held a ban on handguns denied an entire type of firearm, so would a ban on "assault rifles".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Specify what I got wrong, show how I got it wrong, and then answer the question from the OP.

It's not exactly as you understand it

In Heller the Court narrowly ruled an outright ban on handguns, of the kind enacted by D.C., violates the Constitution. The Court also ruled that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

IOW... given Heller, you cannot explain how/why it will uphold an AWB.
Thank you. You're dismissd.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In Heller, the court ruled that a ban on handguns – the kind of firearm most commonly used in gun-related violent crime – in Washington DC – a city with among the highest rates of violent crime in the US – violates the constitution under any standard of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.

Given that, on what grounds will the court uphold a nationwide ban on ‘assault weapons’, a class of firearm in common use across the country for lawful purposes, but virtually never used in gun-related violent crime?

Level of judicial review will be key, and as we know strict scrutiny has been rarely used when reviewing gun cases by state and other lower courts.

Evidence that the AR 15 is rarely used in acts of gun violence will be significant, hopefully making it difficult for the government to justify the ban even under intermediate scrutiny.

Objective data as to the number of AR 15s in civilian hands would go to an ‘in common use at the time’ argument.

But as with Heller/McDonald, it will ultimately come down to the partisan/political philosophy make up of the Court, the current Court would rule to strike down a new AWB, for example, 5-4.

 

[PaulS1950]

Rean the court's ruling on the Miller case:

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

Frank Layton and Jack Miller were charged with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act, which regulated and taxed the transfer of certain types of firearms, and required the registration of such arms. The Miller court held the following:

1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.

2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."

As noted in the Summary section, Miller has often been mis-cited. Note that in the entire text of Miller, neither the words "state militia" nor "National Guard" are to be found.

Regarding item 4) above, the Miller court defined the Militia as the following:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Attempting to interpret the above paragraph, a law journal article writes,
while far from clear, this passage is not inhospitable to the view that it is a private individual right to keep and bear arms which is protected. For only if there existed such a "body of citizens" in possession of "arms supplied by themselves," could they, should the need arise, be "enrolled for military discipline" to act "in concert for the common defense." (Barnett R., and Kates D., Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment, Emory Law Journal [1996].)

Commenting on the significance of the phrase "enrolled for military discipline," law professor Nelson Lund, in another law journal article explains:
This phrase does not conflict with the preceding sentence in the passage from Miller, for "enrollment" in the militia does not imply or depend on actual military service or training. Under the first Militia Act, for example, those subject to militia duty were enrolled by the local commanding officer, and then notified of that enrollment by a non-commissioned officer. § 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (1792). Whether the members carried out their duties or not, they were still "enrolled." Under the statute in effect at the time Miller was decided (as in the statute in force today), enrollment was accomplished by the operation of law alone, and most members of the militia were probably not even aware that they belonged to such a body. National Defense Act, ch. 134, § 57, 39 Stat. 166, 197 (1916); 10 U.S.C. § 311(a) (1994). Thus, neither the Miller opinion nor any of the various militia statutes can be used to shore up the insupportable notion that the Second Amendment protects only a right to serve in the National Guard. (Lund, Nelson, The Past and Future of the Individual's Right to Arms, [Footnote 54], Georgia Law Review [1996].)

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court, giving the defendants a chance to provide evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun could contribute to "the efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (The Court was apparently unaware of the use of short-barreled shotguns in trench warfare during World War I. [http://nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=17] )

Note, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.

I add:
"assault" weapons are by the left's own definition "Militia" type weapons. They are therefore protected by the second amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In Heller, the court ruled that a ban on handguns – the kind of firearm most commonly used in gun-related violent crime – in Washington DC – a city with among the highest rates of violent crime in the US – violates the constitution under any standard of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.

Given that, on what grounds will the court uphold a nationwide ban on ‘assault weapons’, a class of firearm in common use across the country for lawful purposes, but virtually never used in gun-related violent crime?

Level of judicial review will be key...

Part of the point is that the handgun ban violated the constitution under any level of scrutiy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

In Heller, the court ruled that a ban on handguns – the kind of firearm most commonly used in gun-related violent crime – in Washington DC – a city with among the highest rates of violent crime in the US – violates the constitution under any standard of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.

Given that, on what grounds will the court uphold a nationwide ban on ‘assault weapons’, a class of firearm in common use across the country for lawful purposes, but virtually never used in gun-related violent crime?

My personal opinion is that SCOTUS will never get a shot at ruling on an AWB. I don't think it is coming.

The GOP/Tea Party faction in the US House and/or the GOP in the US Senate might block one this year, but given a few elections and battles, it will happen. There will be more mass shootings and they will drive the debate.

I don't think it's just the GOP/Tea Party factions that must be overcome. I think some of the hurdles remain among moderates and that includes this moving target definition of assault weapon. In the new venacular, "assault weapon" has come to include charateristics that don't necessarily make a gun more lethal or more dangerous.

My personal opinion is that you would do much better to address the characteristics that make a particular weapon more dangerous and shed the "assault weapon" labels.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Heller affirms it is an individual right and that weapons in COMMON USE are protected. Guess what? That means the supposed assault rifle is protected as it is in common use.

Just as in Heller where the Court held a ban on handguns denied an entire type of firearm, so would a ban on "assault rifles".

that's an argument that will not hold water. Wait and see.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In Heller, the court ruled that a ban on handguns – the kind of firearm most commonly used in gun-related violent crime – in Washington DC – a city with among the highest rates of violent crime in the US – violates the constitution under any standard of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.

Given that, on what grounds will the court uphold a nationwide ban on ‘assault weapons’, a class of firearm in common use across the country for lawful purposes, but virtually never used in gun-related violent crime?

Level of judicial review will be key, and as we know strict scrutiny has been rarely used when reviewing gun cases by state and other lower courts.

Evidence that the AR 15 is rarely used in acts of gun violence will be significant, hopefully making it difficult for the government to justify the ban even under intermediate scrutiny.

Objective data as to the number of AR 15s in civilian hands would go to an ‘in common use at the time’ argument.

But as with Heller/McDonald, it will ultimately come down to the partisan/political philosophy make up of the Court, the current Court would rule to strike down a new AWB, for example, 5-4.

wrong. you people live in an echo chamber we went down this road with Obamacare

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Specify what I got wrong, show how I got it wrong, and then answer the question from the OP.

It's not exactly as you understand it

In Heller the Court narrowly ruled an outright ban on handguns, of the kind enacted by D.C., violates the Constitution. The Court also ruled that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

IOW... given Heller, you cannot explain how/why it will uphold an AWB.
Thank you. You're dismissd.

Assault Weapons are not considered common by the majority of Americans. Like I've said before, many of you gun nuts (I support 2nd amendment) live in an echo chamber where all you do is convince yourselves that you speak with authority and for the rest of America.

Support of the 2nd does not equate no gun control

 

[OODA_Loop]

Assault Weapons are not considered common by the majority of Americans.

Retailed at WALMART makes em pretty common.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In Heller, the court ruled that a ban on handguns – the kind of firearm most commonly used in gun-related violent crime – in Washington DC – a city with among the highest rates of violent crime in the US – violates the constitution under any standard of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.

Given that, on what grounds will the court uphold a nationwide ban on ‘assault weapons’, a class of firearm in common use across the country for lawful purposes, but virtually never used in gun-related violent crime?

Why wasn't the first assault weapons ban challenged?