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

[hazlnut]

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

So, who needs to be replaced in order to have a case that will overturn the Heller ruling?

Scalia?

 

[hazlnut]

Just looked it up, Scalia and Kennedy are both turning 77 this year.

Including Ginsberg, Breyer we could get 4 new justices in the next four years.

All born after 1960 -- that would be outstanding.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just looked it up, Scalia and Kennedy are both turning 77 this year.

Including Ginsberg, Breyer we could get 4 new justices in the next four years.

All born after 1960 -- that would be outstanding.

Scalia and Kennedy are not likely to retire with Obama in office, perhaps being the good little Sieg Heil you will suggest assassination next?

 

[Staidhup]

Assault weapons, aka automatic weapons were banned years ago, so please stop confusing the two. The problem is that not one gun has ever held up a bank, killed someone, or committed a crime, and that simply pisses off the left.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Retailed at WALMART makes em pretty common.

Never mind that "common" is not dependent on an opinion poll.

 

[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?

Why wasn't the first assault weapons ban challenged?

So, your answer is that you -cannot- descrive the grounds on which an AWB will be upheld, given Heller. Thank you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Assault weapons, aka automatic weapons were banned years ago, so please stop confusing the two.

^^
This is the picture next to the OED definition of "irony".

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, who needs to be replaced in order to have a case that will overturn the Heller ruling?
Scalia?

Not that you have any hope of answering this question outside of bigoted, partisan ignorance:
On what grounds would the court overturn Heller?

 

[candycorn]

Sure. The court has a way of being the grown-ups since they are no so overtly political. Only morons think the founders had 2013 America in mind in drafting the 2nd Amendment. The court would uphold it.

Hopefully, Obama will appoint 3 more justices and use such a common-sense thing as a litmus test.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure.

On what grounds?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sure.

On what grounds?

Fairy dust and pink Unicorn farts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure.

On what grounds?

Fairy dust and pink Unicorn farts.

Better than what he can come up with.