Would Another Assault Weapons Ban Be Effective?

[BlindBoo]

Wrong.
The NFA did NOT at all make ANYTHING illegal to possess.
All it did is require proper licensing and registration.
Almost anyone can own almost anything.
And obviously hand grenades can and are owned by non-military people because they are produced by private companies.
And to prove it, lots of private citizens buy, own, and use commercial, low shrapnel, grenades in order to do things like reduce avalanche dangers at ski resorts.
Ski resorts also can and do buy, own, and use explosive rockets, cannon, etc.

Look at the first n words....

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act .......

Then of course the military application was stipulated....

"The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess "destructive devices," which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There's no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law's provisions"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's not get dragged down into a stupid argument of what an "assault weapon" is. An assault weapon is whatever Congress decides it is, and to argue about how stupid it is they include one kind of gun and not another is a waste of time.

In 1994, Congress passed an AWB: Text of H.R. 4296 (103rd): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (Placed on Calendar in the Senate version) - GovTrack.us

The AWB also banned large capacity magazines, though existing large capacity magazines were grandfathered. You could still buy and sell grandfathered magazines.

It is my opinion that the AWB had a negligible impact on the gun homicide rate in America.

The 1994 AWB expired in 2004.

I imagine any future AWB will have a longer list of "assault weapons", and will police large capacity magazines more thoroughly.

Now let's get down to the meat and potatoes of why this is an exercise in futility.

First and foremost, 99 percent of all gun homicides do not involve an assault weapon.

Assault weapon shootings make splashy headlines. Lots of blood and sadness.

The press tries to connect every mass shooting to assault weapons. Every time there is a mass shooting involving an assault weapon, the following days are filled with headlines screaming about how many mass shootings per week we are suffering, with the unspoken but deliberate implication these mass shootings all involve assault weapons.

The fact is, the vast majority of mass shootings do NOT involve an assault weapons ban.

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2023 | Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.

www.statista.com

Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 151 different handguns being used in 103 incidents between 1982 and November 2022. These figures are calculated from a total of 137 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 75 percent of mass shootings.


Here is the definition of a mass shooting: Mass shooting | Definition, Statistics, Weapons, & Locations

mass shooting, also called active shooter incident, as defined by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an event in which one or more individuals are “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of a firearm.” The FBI has not set a minimum number of casualties to qualify an event as a mass shooting, but U.S. statute (the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012) defines a “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.”


It is my opinion an Assault Weapons Ban is theater for the rubes which has little to no effect on the gun violence problem in the United States.

Fire away!

No, a new AWB wouldn't be effective.

A ban would only prohibit new sales and transfers, not weapons currently in possession.

 

[g5000]

No, a new AWB wouldn't be effective.

A ban would only prohibit new sales and transfers, not weapons currently in possession.

Yep. An AWB is theater for the rubes. It would have a negligible impact on gun homicides.

That's the point I am trying to make, but some people would rather thrash around in the weeds.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But it is a simple fact that whatever Congress decides to ban is what gets banned. Arguing over the definition of an assault weapon is mental masturbation. Congress has the final word.

Correct.

Legislative bodies determine what constitutes an assault weapon, not gun manufacturers, the military, or message board posters.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yep. An AWB is theater for the rubes. It would have a negligible impact on gun homicides.

That's the point I am trying to make, but some people would rather thrash around in the weeds.

Bans in general don't work, whether it's drugs, abortion, Prohibition, or guns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Vanchoff v. James would have been the case to watch, but FPC dropped it without explanation.

In his Heller opinion, Scalia said the Second Amendment, "like most rights", is not unlimited.

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.


What the Supremes would have to determine with an AWB is if an AR-15, for example, is a dangerous and unusual weapon.

Like a hand grenade.

Or a machine gun.

Or a tank.

Or a nuke.

Or if AR 15's are in common use and fall within the scope of the Amendment.

 

[Vastator]

The common use trope is complete bullshit, as Americans will find out the hard way, if they don't push back. And push back HARD! Technology is ever changing, and new advances in firearms mean that they can, and will use this trope to keep the plebes from arming themselves with the very best, state of the art arms, with which they could ultimately thwart tyranny with.

 

[2aguy]

Let's not get dragged down into a stupid argument of what an "assault weapon" is. An assault weapon is whatever Congress decides it is, and to argue about how stupid it is they include one kind of gun and not another is a waste of time.

In 1994, Congress passed an AWB: Text of H.R. 4296 (103rd): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (Placed on Calendar in the Senate version) - GovTrack.us

The AWB also banned large capacity magazines, though existing large capacity magazines were grandfathered. You could still buy and sell grandfathered magazines.

It is my opinion that the AWB had a negligible impact on the gun homicide rate in America.

The 1994 AWB expired in 2004.

I imagine any future AWB will have a longer list of "assault weapons", and will police large capacity magazines more thoroughly.

Now let's get down to the meat and potatoes of why this is an exercise in futility.

First and foremost, 99 percent of all gun homicides do not involve an assault weapon.

Assault weapon shootings make splashy headlines. Lots of blood and sadness.

The press tries to connect every mass shooting to assault weapons. Every time there is a mass shooting involving an assault weapon, the following days are filled with headlines screaming about how many mass shootings per week we are suffering, with the unspoken but deliberate implication these mass shootings all involve assault weapons.

The fact is, the vast majority of mass shootings do NOT involve an assault weapons ban.

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2023 | Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.

www.statista.com

Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 151 different handguns being used in 103 incidents between 1982 and November 2022. These figures are calculated from a total of 137 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 75 percent of mass shootings.


Here is the definition of a mass shooting: Mass shooting | Definition, Statistics, Weapons, & Locations

mass shooting, also called active shooter incident, as defined by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an event in which one or more individuals are “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of a firearm.” The FBI has not set a minimum number of casualties to qualify an event as a mass shooting, but U.S. statute (the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012) defines a “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.”


It is my opinion an Assault Weapons Ban is theater for the rubes which has little to no effect on the gun violence problem in the United States.

Fire away!

Wow........the broken clock goes for the win...........

You are correct.

Mass public shootings are not stopped by banning guns...they are stopped by intelligence work by the police, by the people who know the mass public shooters before the act.

Mass public shooters are different from other criminals, they have build up time that is obvious when you go into their background....which is sadly done after the attack when the police and feds say, "yeah, we knew about this guy....."

To stop mass public shooters we need to educate people who know them...so they can notify police, and mental health professionals before they act.....

Banning any guns will not stop them.

 

[2aguy]

Did the court overrule the last AWB?

Nope!

They didn't have 4 real justices on the court, it was a 4-4 split so neither side of the court, the left wing morons, and the rational Justices didn't give 4 votes for cert.......

Now you have Bruen.......and any Assault weapon ban is done.....

 

[2aguy]

Vanchoff v. James would have been the case to watch, but FPC dropped it without explanation.

In his Heller opinion, Scalia said the Second Amendment, "like most rights", is not unlimited.

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.


What the Supremes would have to determine with an AWB is if an AR-15, for example, is a dangerous and unusual weapon.

Like a hand grenade.

Or a machine gun.

Or a tank.

Or a nuke.

And you fail to state the rest of what he said, and what he wrote in other decisions.......because it doesn't give you the right answer.....

A rifle of any sort is a "Bearable ARm....."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

 

[g5000]

Wow........the broken clock goes for the win...........

You are correct.

Mass public shootings are not stopped by banning guns...they are stopped by intelligence work by the police, by the people who know the mass public shooters before the act.

Mass public shooters are different from other criminals, they have build up time that is obvious when you go into their background....which is sadly done after the attack when the police and feds say, "yeah, we knew about this guy....."

To stop mass public shooters we need to educate people who know them...so they can notify police, and mental health professionals before they act.....

Banning any guns will not stop them.

Mass shootings aren't even a blip on the gun homicide body count.

Even if we stopped every mass shooting, it would have a negligible impact on the number of gun homicides.

We obviously need to focus our energies on better solutions to the real problem.

 

[2aguy]

Vanchoff v. James would have been the case to watch, but FPC dropped it without explanation.

In his Heller opinion, Scalia said the Second Amendment, "like most rights", is not unlimited.

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.


What the Supremes would have to determine with an AWB is if an AR-15, for example, is a dangerous and unusual weapon.

Like a hand grenade.

Or a machine gun.

Or a tank.

Or a nuke.

As to dangerous and unusual....already decided in Caetano....

And as to the Dangerous and Unusual portion....from Miller......Justice Alito Addresses that in Caetano v. Massachusetts as he confirms that Heller protects these weapons....

....these rifles are protected and those bans are unConstitutional...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.

554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

---

 

[2aguy]

Mass shootings aren't even a blip on the gun homicide body count.

Even if we stopped every mass shooting, it would have a negligible impact on the number of gun homicides.

We obviously need to focus our energies on better solutions to the real problem.

Yep....I have been making that case for years.......yet the gun grabbers focus on mass public shootings because they allow them to lie to uninformed Americans and to stampede those uninformed people into giving them the power to ban and confiscate guns.

 

[g5000]

Yep....I have been making that case for years.......yet the gun grabbers focus on mass public shootings because they allow them to lie to uninformed Americans and to stampede those uninformed people into giving them the power to ban and confiscate guns.

Every once in a while, someone gets badly mauled or killed by a shark. And for weeks afterward, there are shark stories in the news.

So when we see something in the news which gets hyped for a long time after a particularly bad incident, my wife and I turn to each other and say, "Shark bite story."

That's how it is with mass shootings. All the focus is on assault weapons after a horrible school shooting. Any time an AR-15 is used in a crime, the media makes sure to mention that specific weapon.

On the flip side, the right wing media downplays or denies we have a serious gun homicide problem in America.

 

[TNHarley]

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act ("NFA"), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess "destructive devices," which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There's no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law's provisions—non-military people may not possess them.

Wrong, as usual. ATF form 4

 

[BlindBoo]

Wrong, as usual. ATF form 4

What Are "Destructive Devices"?​

Under the NFA, the term "destructive device" includes three types of explosives or weapons:

1. Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines (and similar devices). Military grenades fit into this category. How a defendant intends to use the device is irrelevant—mere possession is enough for a conviction.
2. Any type of weapon, no matter its name, that will (or may be readily converted to) expel a projectile using an explosive or other propellant (with a barrel bore of more than one-half inch; certain shotguns may be excepted). As in category 1, the intended use is not relevant, because possession alone is all that's required for a conviction.
3. Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term ‘destructive device' does not include any device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon (such as a stick of commercial dynamite); or any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, that is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device.

The problematic part of the "destructive device" definition is the third definition. While it's clear that a person's state of mind is not relevant when dealing with devices that fall into one of the first two categories, that's not the case with the third. Courts have come to inconsistent conclusions when considering whether the state of mind of the person charged matters, when caught with a combination of components, or an assembled device, that could be used either innocently or for destructive purposes.

How Do Courts Decide What Is a "Destructive Device"?​

Courts have adopted three approaches to deciding whether an item, or collection of items, constitutes a destructive device, which would include a hand grenade. Whether a non-military "grenade" is actually a grenade for purposes of the NFA will depend on the court's choice.

Is it Legal to Own Hand Grenades?

"Hand grenades" include many more devices besides live military weapons. Often, what constitutes a hand grenade will depend on the view of the court making the decis

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

 

[miketx]

Let's not get dragged down into a stupid argument of what an "assault weapon" is. An assault weapon is whatever Congress decides it is, and to argue about how stupid it is they include one kind of gun and not another is a waste of time.

In 1994, Congress passed an AWB: Text of H.R. 4296 (103rd): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (Placed on Calendar in the Senate version) - GovTrack.us

The AWB also banned large capacity magazines, though existing large capacity magazines were grandfathered. You could still buy and sell grandfathered magazines.

It is my opinion that the AWB had a negligible impact on the gun homicide rate in America.

The 1994 AWB expired in 2004.

I imagine any future AWB will have a longer list of "assault weapons", and will police large capacity magazines more thoroughly.

Now let's get down to the meat and potatoes of why this is an exercise in futility.

First and foremost, 99 percent of all gun homicides do not involve an assault weapon.

Assault weapon shootings make splashy headlines. Lots of blood and sadness.

The press tries to connect every mass shooting to assault weapons. Every time there is a mass shooting involving an assault weapon, the following days are filled with headlines screaming about how many mass shootings per week we are suffering, with the unspoken but deliberate implication these mass shootings all involve assault weapons.

The fact is, the vast majority of mass shootings do NOT involve an assault weapons ban.

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2023 | Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.

www.statista.com

Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 151 different handguns being used in 103 incidents between 1982 and November 2022. These figures are calculated from a total of 137 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 75 percent of mass shootings.


Here is the definition of a mass shooting: Mass shooting | Definition, Statistics, Weapons, & Locations

mass shooting, also called active shooter incident, as defined by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an event in which one or more individuals are “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of a firearm.” The FBI has not set a minimum number of casualties to qualify an event as a mass shooting, but U.S. statute (the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012) defines a “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.”


It is my opinion an Assault Weapons Ban is theater for the rubes which has little to no effect on the gun violence problem in the United States.

Fire away!

Come get them, douche.

 

[miketx]

What Are "Destructive Devices"?​

Under the NFA, the term "destructive device" includes three types of explosives or weapons:

1. Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines (and similar devices). Military grenades fit into this category. How a defendant intends to use the device is irrelevant—mere possession is enough for a conviction.
2. Any type of weapon, no matter its name, that will (or may be readily converted to) expel a projectile using an explosive or other propellant (with a barrel bore of more than one-half inch; certain shotguns may be excepted). As in category 1, the intended use is not relevant, because possession alone is all that's required for a conviction.
3. Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term ‘destructive device' does not include any device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon (such as a stick of commercial dynamite); or any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, that is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device.

The problematic part of the "destructive device" definition is the third definition. While it's clear that a person's state of mind is not relevant when dealing with devices that fall into one of the first two categories, that's not the case with the third. Courts have come to inconsistent conclusions when considering whether the state of mind of the person charged matters, when caught with a combination of components, or an assembled device, that could be used either innocently or for destructive purposes.

How Do Courts Decide What Is a "Destructive Device"?​

Courts have adopted three approaches to deciding whether an item, or collection of items, constitutes a destructive device, which would include a hand grenade. Whether a non-military "grenade" is actually a grenade for purposes of the NFA will depend on the court's choice.

Is it Legal to Own Hand Grenades?

"Hand grenades" include many more devices besides live military weapons. Often, what constitutes a hand grenade will depend on the view of the court making the decis

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

You, and filth like you are destructive devices.

 

[BlindBoo]

You, and filth like you are destructive devices.

 

[2aguy]

Every once in a while, someone gets badly mauled or killed by a shark. And for weeks afterward, there are shark stories in the news.

So when we see something in the news which gets hyped for a long time after a particularly bad incident, my wife and I turn to each other and say, "Shark bite story."

That's how it is with mass shootings. All the focus is on assault weapons after a horrible school shooting. Any time an AR-15 is used in a crime, the media makes sure to mention that specific weapon.

On the flip side, the right wing media downplays or denies we have a serious gun homicide problem in America.

No.......we dont downplay the homicide problem....you guys simply focus on the gun, not the criminal.

95% of gun murders are committed by the same criminals, or criminals with long histories of crime and violence......crimunals who should be in prison, but are released over and over again, primarily due to the policies of the democrat party...,,

We want to stop criminals....you want to use criminals as the excuse to ban and confiscate guns.