'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

[Quantum Windbag]

Why are fully automatics banned, then?

Maybe they shouldn't be. Imagine the fun in a movie theater then.

Didn't that guy have some explosives? those are illegal, but he still had them.

 

[Vidi]

sorry that was asked and answered - post deleted by poster

 

[Vidi]

Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

Im going to put a disclaimer in front of my reply. I am playing devils advocate here. I have not in the past nor do I now nor will I ever support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.

Ok, Shooter, heres the ONLY arguement I have ever heard that actually made some sense.

Which is more important: The 1st or the 2nd amendment?

I would argue that they are equally important, one nor more than the other and even that they are complimentary, perhaps even symbiotic.

Yet, we have placed reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment have we not? It is illegal to walk into a crowded place and yell," FIRE!" for example. Child pornography, and other obscenities, time,place and manner restrictions and restrictions on what can and cant be broadcast on the public airwaves are other examples.

If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?




If you agree with the above, then the debate becomes about what is considered reasonable as oppsed to a "BAN ALL GUNS!" vs "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!" battle, which isnt a debate, in my opinion, but a stand off.

 

[Oddball]

False reasoning. The unorganized militia is subject to military call up at any time. The government can organize that militia any time it wishes.

Civic Virtue not militia weapons keeps our government in check.

No need exists for any citizen to have a guided missile frigate in his pool.

Stupid analogy...Nobody can "bear" a missile frigate.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why are fully automatics banned, then?

They are only banned in 13 states. The rest allow them. As to why? The Court has not to my knowledge been ask to defend the ban in those States. They were made requiring a Federal license because of the crime sprees with tommy guns in the early 30's.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?

The current court ruled it is a Individual right separate from membership in a State militia. Do keep up.

 

[Borillar]

Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

Im going to put a disclaimer in front of my reply. I am playing devils advocate here. I have not in the past nor do I now nor will I ever support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.

Ok, Shooter, heres the ONLY arguement I have ever heard that actually made some sense.

Which is more important: The 1st or the 2nd amendment?

I would argue that they are equally important, one nor more than the other and even that they are complimentary, perhaps even symbiotic.

Yet, we have placed reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment have we not? It is illegal to walk into a crowded place and yell," FIRE!" for example. Child pornography, and other obscenities, time,place and manner restrictions and restrictions on what can and cant be broadcast on the public airwaves are other examples.

If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?




If you agree with the above, then the debate becomes about what is considered reasonable as oppsed to a "BAN ALL GUNS!" vs "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!" battle, which isnt a debate, in my opinion, but a stand off.

Apparently, all a person needs to do in order to get an automatic weapon is that the purchaser pass a Federal background check and pay a $200 transfer stamp tax upon delivery of the device. If one was to discourage the general populace from having such weapons, perhaps all that is needed is to extend the requirements to semi-automatic weapons and handguns and increase the transfer stamp tax to several thousand dollars per weapon.

 

[Vidi]

Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

Im going to put a disclaimer in front of my reply. I am playing devils advocate here. I have not in the past nor do I now nor will I ever support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.

Ok, Shooter, heres the ONLY arguement I have ever heard that actually made some sense.

Which is more important: The 1st or the 2nd amendment?

I would argue that they are equally important, one nor more than the other and even that they are complimentary, perhaps even symbiotic.

Yet, we have placed reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment have we not? It is illegal to walk into a crowded place and yell," FIRE!" for example. Child pornography, and other obscenities, time,place and manner restrictions and restrictions on what can and cant be broadcast on the public airwaves are other examples.

If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?




If you agree with the above, then the debate becomes about what is considered reasonable as oppsed to a "BAN ALL GUNS!" vs "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!" battle, which isnt a debate, in my opinion, but a stand off.

Apparently, all a person needs to do in order to get an automatic weapon is that the purchaser pass a Federal background check and pay a $200 transfer stamp tax upon delivery of the device. If one was to discourage the general populace from having such weapons, perhaps all that is needed is to extend the requirements to semi-automatic weapons and handguns and increase the transfer stamp tax to several thousand dollars per weapon.

Semi autos can be converted by people with the will and know how ( which is fairly easily accessible )

But the question becomes: Does placing a large tax on them then become an interference with the rights of the manufacturer itself? And if it does, but is acceptable, wouldnt low sales force them to design something that would escape the tax while maintaining the same firepower?

Just some thoughts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Add to the AR the various AK/M clones, likely owned by almost as many Americans.

An ‘assault weapons’ ban would not pass a rational basis review, as such a restriction would not be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Indeed, there is no consensus as to what constitutes an ‘assault weapon,’ or that they even exist in the civilian market.

To ban a weapon based solely on its cosmetic configuration, magazine design, or ammunition capacity is thus un-Constitutional.

If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?

Yes, the Second Amendment is not absolute, as with other civil rights. But banning ‘assault weapons’ is not a reasonable restriction.

Also remember that per Heller, the Second Amendment codifies the right to defend oneself, upon which the individual right to own a firearm is predicated.

 

[Vidi]

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Add to the AR the various AK/M clones, likely owned by almost as many Americans.

An ‘assault weapons’ ban would not pass a rational basis review, as such a restriction would not be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Indeed, there is no consensus as to what constitutes an ‘assault weapon,’ or that they even exist in the civilian market.

To ban a weapon based solely on its cosmetic configuration, magazine design, or ammunition capacity is thus un-Constitutional.

If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?

Yes, the Second Amendment is not absolute, as with other civil rights. But banning ‘assault weapons’ is not a reasonable restriction.

Also remember that per Heller, the Second Amendment codifies the right to defend oneself, upon which the individual right to own a firearm is predicated.

I agree with your entire post. Well said.

 

[Borillar]

Im going to put a disclaimer in front of my reply. I am playing devils advocate here. I have not in the past nor do I now nor will I ever support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.

Ok, Shooter, heres the ONLY arguement I have ever heard that actually made some sense.

Which is more important: The 1st or the 2nd amendment?

I would argue that they are equally important, one nor more than the other and even that they are complimentary, perhaps even symbiotic.

Yet, we have placed reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment have we not? It is illegal to walk into a crowded place and yell," FIRE!" for example. Child pornography, and other obscenities, time,place and manner restrictions and restrictions on what can and cant be broadcast on the public airwaves are other examples.

If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?




If you agree with the above, then the debate becomes about what is considered reasonable as oppsed to a "BAN ALL GUNS!" vs "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!" battle, which isnt a debate, in my opinion, but a stand off.

Apparently, all a person needs to do in order to get an automatic weapon is that the purchaser pass a Federal background check and pay a $200 transfer stamp tax upon delivery of the device. If one was to discourage the general populace from having such weapons, perhaps all that is needed is to extend the requirements to semi-automatic weapons and handguns and increase the transfer stamp tax to several thousand dollars per weapon.

Semi autos can be converted by people with the will and know how ( which is fairly easily accessible )

But the question becomes: Does placing a large tax on them then become an interference with the rights of the manufacturer itself? And if it does, but is acceptable, wouldnt low sales force them to design something that would escape the tax while maintaining the same firepower?

Just some thoughts.

Well, I've seen people very quick with revolvers, but even with speed loaders they wouldn't be as fast as a good semiautomatic.

Other restrictions or requirements might also be permissible. Licensing and registration of firearms. Safety classes, liability insurance requirements, etc. Joe Blow could still have his BFG-9000 but could wind up paying some hefty fees, licenses, and taxes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

Assuming a weapon must fit all of these criteria, rather than just one of them, I wonder if the AR-15 can be considered 'in common use'. I don't think private ownership of that type of rifle is all that common; not vanishingly uncommon either, it's a question of just what constitutes common in this context. Does common use mean 5% of gun owners? 5% of the total population? Does military use count toward common use?

The 'common use at the time' refers to military use, as the term comes from US v Miller. A clone of the USGI service rifle, it doesn't get a lot more 'common' in this context.

 

[copsnrobbers]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TepdEvqV8lw&feature=player_embedded]Keller's Riverside Store CHL radio ad - YouTube[/ame]

 

[M14 Shooter]

As for can assault weapons be banned...I believe that recently one of the more conservative Supreme Court justices has opened the door to this matter.

We'll have to see" isn't much of a leg to stand on - never mind the fact that no justice worth his robes presages his decision of a case that's not yet been brought before him.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it?

Read Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Be sure to take note of the part that says:

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.

Now then --care to try again?

Thank you for the link. I stand corrected. I did note that licensing and registration of firearms was permissible.

You'll have to cite the text in Heller that says this.

 

[Vidi]

Apparently, all a person needs to do in order to get an automatic weapon is that the purchaser pass a Federal background check and pay a $200 transfer stamp tax upon delivery of the device. If one was to discourage the general populace from having such weapons, perhaps all that is needed is to extend the requirements to semi-automatic weapons and handguns and increase the transfer stamp tax to several thousand dollars per weapon.

Semi autos can be converted by people with the will and know how ( which is fairly easily accessible )

But the question becomes: Does placing a large tax on them then become an interference with the rights of the manufacturer itself? And if it does, but is acceptable, wouldnt low sales force them to design something that would escape the tax while maintaining the same firepower?

Just some thoughts.

Well, I've seen people very quick with revolvers, but even with speed loaders they wouldn't be as fast as a good semiautomatic.

Other restrictions or requirements might also be permissible. Licensing and registration of firearms. Safety classes, liability insurance requirements, etc. Joe Blow could still have his BFG-9000 but could wind up paying some hefty fees, licenses, and taxes.

True, but to expound upon your point. A well trained or well practiced individual can be much more deadly with a semi auto mandgun than a fully automatic assault rifle in the hands of a rank amatuer.

So an assault weapons ban or hefty fees on assualt weapons may look like the obvious answer but I think that the issue is more situational which may be where the problem with finding a reasonable solution lies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

Im going to put a disclaimer in front of my reply. I am playing devils advocate here. I have not in the past nor do I now nor will I ever support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.

Ok, Shooter, heres the ONLY arguement I have ever heard that actually made some sense.

Which is more important: The 1st or the 2nd amendment?

I would argue that they are equally important, one nor more than the other and even that they are complimentary, perhaps even symbiotic.

Yet, we have placed reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment have we not? It is illegal to walk into a crowded place and yell," FIRE!" for example. Child pornography, and other obscenities, time,place and manner restrictions and restrictions on what can and cant be broadcast on the public airwaves are other examples.

All of these restrictions are based on the idea that the 1st amendment does not protect speech that causes harm (libel, slander, child porn)or places people in a condition of immediate, clear and present danger (fire in a theater). For this line of reasoning to hold water, you need to show that --simple posession/ownership-- of an AR-15 and GI magazines does one or both of these things.

 

[Darkwind]

Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

I am going to have to see the source for these claims. I know of no SCOTUS ruling in which the 2nd Amendment applies ONLY to the appropriate service in the Militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Semi autos can be converted by people with the will and know how ( which is fairly easily accessible )

But the question becomes: Does placing a large tax on them then become an interference with the rights of the manufacturer itself? And if it does, but is acceptable, wouldnt low sales force them to design something that would escape the tax while maintaining the same firepower?

Just some thoughts.

Well, I've seen people very quick with revolvers, but even with speed loaders they wouldn't be as fast as a good semiautomatic.

Other restrictions or requirements might also be permissible. Licensing and registration of firearms. Safety classes, liability insurance requirements, etc. Joe Blow could still have his BFG-9000 but could wind up paying some hefty fees, licenses, and taxes.

True, but to expound upon your point. A well trained or well practiced individual can be much more deadly with a semi auto mandgun than a fully automatic assault rifle in the hands of a rank amatuer.

A smart shooter with a good bolt-gun can cause considerably more damage than the loon in CO by simply shooting at distances greater than most peple can fathom.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

I am going to have to see the source for these claims. I know of no SCOTUS ruling in which the 2nd Amendment applies ONLY to the appropriate service in the Militia.

Please read what I said more carefully.