'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

[there4eyeM]

"A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason."

If the point of having the militia is to resist the central government, wouldn't that necessitate the possibility of a confrontation with the central government's troops?

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I always find these debates so laughable. I knew the minute I heard about the Colorado shooting that we were going to tread this well worn ground yet again. AND the same cries from the left, would be used over and over that are always used.

Let's remember that Clinton outlawed the large magazines. What happened? Little shops all over the midwest went into action and although the price for them grew, you could still get large capacity magazines almost anywhere. The bottom line: Once again Washington twitches and expects EVERYONE to walk lock-step with their view of how the world MUST be. The liberal/progressive view of the "masses" as sheep that must be herded.

The same will go IF an attempt is made to outlaw the so-called "assault weapons." I have an M-4 that is in my truck on a rifle rack, just above the shotgun (870 Remington with no choke). Underneath the seat is a Colt Double Eagle. All three are fully loaded and are always handy. I know people that have as many as fifty weapons, some definately "assault" weapons. If they are outlawed, then the dealing and trading of those weapons will go underground. Just like the trading of those large capacity magazines did previously.

Here's a clue: I don't care what you want in New York, or Baltimore, or Los Angeles, or Chicago for that matter. You do what ever makes your little heart warm and fuzzy (do you really expect the murder rate in Chicago to drop because you outlaw weapons?). You want to make the private ownership of weapons against the law, you do just that. BUT here in this area, where a man can drive for 100 miles in any direction without going through a town of more than 10,000, leave us ALONE. We will NOT stand in line for you. We will NOT walk to the beat of your drummer and we will not give up the rights and freedoms that our forefathers fought and died for. Here, in this area, a gun can still be the difference between life or death. In the 1870's it was the Colt double action Peacemaker. Now it's the AR-15 and the M-4. Because you progressives will NOT secure the border, now more than ever the Mexican drug cartels are moving in. Hell, they just busted a ranch not 20 miles from mine that was harboring the brother of a Mexican drug king pin and was laundering money for the cartel.

Liberals are so predictable and so laughable... they live in these mega cities and have no clue about how other people live in the rest of the country.

 

[PratchettFan]

"A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason."

If the point of having the militia is to resist the central government, wouldn't that necessitate the possibility of a confrontation with the central government's troops?

Yes. But that is not the point of having the militia. The point of a militia is so the federal government has the ability to call upon troops in times of war. The states cannot, without the express permission of the Congress, even have a militia except in time of war. While the militia is organized (thus regulated) by the state, it is in fact under the control of the federal government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you saying that if the assault weapons ban is unconstitional then nothing can be done about Assault weapons?

The OP was very clear. Please feel free to address it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

There is no militia requirement for the 2nd Amendment.
None whatever.

Not in order to exercise the right or have your right protected - correct.
The relationship to the militia comes in where the weapon is concerned. Please re-read the OP.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?

I'm sorry -- I dont see your response to the OP.

As for your question: it worked for the Iraqis.

 

[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.

Various SCOTUS rulings that you haven't bothered to cite is what you mean.

Cites:
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
McDonald v. City of Chicago : SCOTUSblog

Now that you have the cites, please feel free to actually address the OP

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nuclear weapons are NOT outlawed for citizens by the consitution according to many of USMB's resident constitutional scholars .

STILL, the USA continues to insist tht Iran doesn't have the right to build them.

Go figure

I must have missed your response to the OP.
Could you re-post?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Militias are not kept in place, they are called in times of need. In the times of the founding papers, this was the case and is to this day. The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government. If the people are not already armed in such a case, you wouldn't expect the very government that the people are rising up against arming them do you?

The people need the weapons needed to throw off a government ... In today's time that means assault weapons

Quick question; who is the "regulator" in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? Surely it's not the government, right?

I suggest you re-read Heller. It addresses this at length.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[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.

The SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons.

So you agree that the 2nd prohibits the banning of 'assault weapons' and their attending magazines.
Thank you.

 

[manifold]

Academically speaking, assault weapon bans absolutely violate the 2nd Amendment.

To draw any other conclusion requires bogus inference and mad mental gymnastics.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"

Exactly right. There are no stipulations at all.

Oh, but there are. The 2nd amendment is just one sentence, but it is a complete sentence. It does not begin after the comma. The stipulation is the stated intent of the amendment. Which is not that you can have any weapon you want. The intent is a well regulated militia. You can't have a well regulated militia without the state having the power to regulate. So while the amendment does say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it does not say the right to keep and bear any arms a given citizen wants shall not be infringed.

No one argues that thr 2nd protects the right to own and use ALL weapons.
The issue HERE is 'assault weapons' and the protections afforded to them by the 2nd.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason."

If the point of having the militia is to resist the central government, wouldn't that necessitate the possibility of a confrontation with the central government's troops?

Yes. But that is not the point of having the militia. The point of a militia is so the federal government has the ability to call upon troops in times of war. The states cannot, without the express permission of the Congress, even have a militia except in time of war. While the militia is organized (thus regulated) by the state, it is in fact under the control of the federal government.

That is a simply not true. The States can and some do have militias. The Federal Government can call for only a portion of a States Militia. The right to have a militia is in the 2nd Amendment. The National Guard is part of the US Army. It is no militia. But if it were it is just the Federalized portion that a State may have.

Are you incapable of reading? The second conveys 2 rights. One to the State and one to the Individual. Neither right can be removed by Congress, it would require a new Amendment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Courts have spoken. They have stated that a weapon must be of use to the Militia to be covered by the second ( 39 ruling) the weapon must be in use, of use or previously used by the military.

Heller affirmed that the right is an individual right separate and distinct from the State right to form militias.

What these means is the supposed assault weapon is in fact clearly covered by the 2nd Amendment, which also includes at least 30 round magazines.

Any effort to ban or limit them would require an amendment. Something the gun grabbers are not willing to do cause they know they would lose.

Again, this is false on its face. There are such bans in place and they have not been struck down by the courts.

No one has challenged them, until someone does they may remain but the Courts are clear what the Standard is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you saying that if the assault weapons ban is unconstitional then nothing can be done about Assault weapons?

The very definition of an assault weapon makes it unbannable vis a via the current Supreme Court ruling and previous ones.

Well, given that they are indeed banned in many areas I would say this statement is false on its face.

This only means that the court challenges havent yet to catch up to them, and as such, means nothing.

Do you disagree with the assertion that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd?
Do you believe that 'assaul weapons' can be banned w/o violating the Constitution?

If so, please support your positon.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons. However, the 2nd amendment is not just one half a sentence. It includes regulation by the state. So until the SC provides an opinion which states otherwise, the state has the power to regulate the type, number and frequency of your weapons purchases. If you disagree, take it to the SC.

The word regulate does not mean the same as it did back then

Yes, it does. If you disagree, take it to the SC. Until then, the 1st amendment gives you the right to complain to your heart's content - while the state regulates.

Here's a free lesson, well regulated in the time of the founders, referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?

A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason.

America's founders were traitors. Treason would be doing something unconstitutional. Would assassinating American citizens without due process be treasonous?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nuclear weapons are NOT outlawed for citizens by the consitution according to many of USMB's resident constitutional scholars .

STILL, the USA continues to insist tht Iran doesn't have the right to build them.

Go figure

Nuclear weapons are not FIREARMS XXXXX.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason."

If the point of having the militia is to resist the central government, wouldn't that necessitate the possibility of a confrontation with the central government's troops?

Yes. But that is not the point of having the militia. The point of a militia is so the federal government has the ability to call upon troops in times of war. The states cannot, without the express permission of the Congress, even have a militia except in time of war. While the militia is organized (thus regulated) by the state, it is in fact under the control of the federal government.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[manifold]

Nuclear weapons are NOT outlawed for citizens by the consitution according to many of USMB's resident constitutional scholars .

STILL, the USA continues to insist tht Iran doesn't have the right to build them.

Go figure

Nuclear weapons are not FIREARMS dumb ass.

They are ARMS though.