Ban on ‘assault weapons’ – Constitutional?

[M14 Shooter]

Odd lip service?

You mean like letting guns walk to undermine rights. Not caring who is murdered in the process.

Really?

baby bush had the same program...

and if you think it was to "undermine gun rights" then i'd suggest you have a vivid imagination.

Straight up LIE.

Its Jillian. Silly of you to expect anything different.

 

[Full-Auto]

baby bush had the same program...

and if you think it was to "undermine gun rights" then i'd suggest you have a vivid imagination.

Yes he did with some serious differences, But you knew that and are trying to justify murder.

why would i justify murder.

the only "serious difference" i can see is that this one went bad and people got killed.

because no police endeavor ever goes bad, eh?

you might also want to reassess b/c you don't have a clue about my opinion of the AWB that used to be in effect or my opinion about guns.

You are easy to read.... The very first thing you did was deflect.

Maybe you would like to go on record.

 

[M14 Shooter]

2) Those of us that understand the 2A are many in number...and we all vote.

Yes. This is why Jillian and her ilk spread as many lies as they can about the issue - hoping that those who don't know any better and cannot think for themselves -- you know, the typical 'useful idiot' liberal - will side with them and turn people like us into the minority.

Now, if you think for one second these people aren't talking with dead seriousness about imposing as many restrictions on our innate rights as they can, you're fooling yourself. They look for any opportunity to make their emotionally-based pleas for more control. They are serious but so are we.

No one can seriously question the idea that if The Obama,. et al, thought it was not political suicide to do so, they would enact any avd every gun control scheme they could think of.

But, like most liberals, they put political power over 'the right thing to do'.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Different questions. But I'll answer the other one. The likelihood that the gun grabbers will take on another AWB is low for two reasons: 1) The economy and fiscal situation is so FUBAR that no one will possibly support focusing on an unrelated issue like gun control…

Possible, to some small degree.

and 2) Those of us that understand the 2A are many in number...and we all vote. Sucks for the gun grabbers I guess.

Nonsense.

The left has accepted Heller/McDonald as settled law. And with gun regulations surviving challenges in lower courts, there’s no reason for them to attempt to enact new laws.

Now, if you think for one second these people aren't talking with dead seriousness about imposing as many restrictions on our innate rights as they can, you're fooling yourself. They look for any opportunity to make their emotionally-based pleas for more control. They are serious but so are we.

Pure nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nonsense.
The left has accepted Heller/McDonald as settled law.

You don't read these boards much, do you.

 

[eflatminor]

The left has accepted Heller/McDonald as settled law. And with gun regulations surviving challenges in lower courts, there’s no reason for them to attempt to enact new laws.

You know what, I'm just going to leave it there and say I hope to hell you're right. And that's no nonsense.

 

[Liability]

WTF is an "assault weapon"? A weapon you commit assault with? I look through gun ads sometimes and I don't recall them ever being listed.

A boy scout knife COULD be used to commit an assault.

Certainly, if a boy scout knife COULD be used to commit an assault, then it follows that ANY gun COULD be used to commit an assault.

If the possibility that a firearm can be used to commit an assault were to be the basis of the definition of an "assault weapon," the logically all handguns could be said to be assault weapons.

But the Second Amendment doesn't qualify which arms a person has a RIGHT to bear.

Therefore, logically, it kinda sorta LOOKS a little bit like an "assault weapons" ban is unconstitutional.

 

[ladyliberal]

Given Heller, when do you suppose a blanket ban would be upheld?

As I said already, I don't know where the line would be drawn by the Supreme Court. It would permit handguns and disallow machine guns, I believe.

Well, that's fine - -but the mission here is to create an argument that fits within current law. You can disagree with the ruling, but it maintains its force in the argument you are tasked to present.

I feel I must clarify something: I'm trying to have a conversation with you, not perform a task at your bidding. And in fact your first post asked for an argument given Heller, not conforming to Heller, which is why I mentioned arguments that did not conform to Heller, as well as arguments that did.

Given your ignorance of the specifics of their operation and use, it will be nigh imposible for you to create a sound argument as to the constitutionality of a ban on them.

If you are judging the soundness of the argument that appears to be so. If a more objective authority were I think the result would be otherwise.

In any event, regardless of what the Supreme Court decides in the future, current assault weapons bans must be given the presumption of constitutionality and duly enforced.

Think so? The court has declared the right to arms a fundamental, constitututionally protected right. As such, any restrictions on it, like all other such rights, will be put to a test of strict scrutiny, where the the restriction is held as -UN-consitutiuonal until the relevant state entity can show a compelling interest in affecting said restriction and that the restriction in question is the least restritcive means of achieving that end.

I was speaking of giving them the assumption of validity in enforcement, not in a court of law. However, since you brought it up, there has been at least one decision on an assault weapons ban post-Heller: , Washington, D.C. Assault Weapons Ban Constitutional, Appeals Court Rules - Bloomberg

You might be surprised to learn that the court found (2-1) that strict scrutiny should not be applied, assault weapons bans should not be presumed unconstitutional post-Heller, and that the assault weapons ban in question was upheld. No doubt other courts will make other rulings, but perhaps at this point you might admit that it is possible to construct a defense of the constitutionality of assault weapons bans post-Heller, and in fact that people with credentials exceeding your own have done so.

Sounds like you are unable to create the argument asked of you.
Fear not, for it is a dunting task, and you are not alone.

I disagree. I believe I have constructed (or at least cited) just such an argument. I believe the argument is even quite meritorious, though you didn't ask it. While I shall take your word that I have been dunted, I remain undaunted.

While I don't particularly wish to expand our disagreement, I should note that my silence on other issues raised in this thread, such as the propensity of Obama to enact draconian gun control laws, does not imply that I agree with your position there.

 

[MikeK]

What, exactly, in the above passage leads you to that conclusion, and how?

The last sentence. You may argue that an assault weapon is not a "dangerous and unusual" weapon, but at least in regard to the last word you are incorrect on the facts.

An 'assault weapons' is no more dangerous or unusual than any other gun.
So much for that.

I agree. Why is an Uzi, for one example, more lethal than a slide-action shotgun loaded with 00 buck?

I believe the term "assault" when applied to a firearm, is grossly misunderstood by most of the public and the majority of lawmakers and is responsible for a lot of senseless and repressive legislation.

The term applies to firearms which are ideally suited for a certain type of military tactic. My understanding of an "assault" in military terminology is a rapidly deployed forward movement against an enemy position. Presuming we're talking about an infantry assault rather than an armored assault and based on my (1950s) frame of reference, the ideal assault weapon would be an M-2 carbine. It's light, relatively small, easily handled, very reliable, extremely effective at close range, reasonably accurate at longer range, it has a large magazine capacity and selective action.

But to the average civilian, including lawmakers, most of whom have no military experience, the word "assault" imparts a sinister connotation with criminal reference and is the basis for the ignorantly conceived hysteria affecting certain firearms.

 

[Polk]

Your task here is to, given the facts, argue how such a ban is constitutional.

That it is constitutional, or that it is constitutional as read through the rulings in Heller and McDonald? Because those are two very different questions.

Given that Heller and McDonald are contrilling law, you make a distinction w/o a difference.
Can you make the argument asked of you, or not?

It's actually still a pretty significant difference. Decisions aren't set in stone. Plessy v. Ferguson stood for over 50 years. Where is it today? Ditto for the early 20th century cases regarding child labor laws.

I can set forward an argument under both scenarios though. Looking at plain text, it's obvious from both what is written and from the legislative history that the right was set in a context of quasi-military service. Since the court has a hard time with basic English, I'd note that in both decisions they imply that some restrictions are constitutional, but never spell out exactly which restrictions would qualify.

 

[MikeK]

That it is constitutional, or that it is constitutional as read through the rulings in Heller and McDonald? Because those are two very different questions.

Given that Heller and McDonald are contrilling law, you make a distinction w/o a difference.
Can you make the argument asked of you, or not?

It's actually still a pretty significant difference. Decisions aren't set in stone. Plessy v. Ferguson stood for over 50 years. Where is it today? Ditto for the early 20th century cases regarding child labor laws.

I can set forward an argument under both scenarios though. Looking at plain text, it's obvious from both what is written and from the legislative history that the right was set in a context of quasi-military service. Since the court has a hard time with basic English, I'd note that in both decisions they imply that some restrictions are constitutional, but never spell out exactly which restrictions would qualify.

In a strict interpretation, the right to "keep and bear arms" does not specify what kind of arms or how many. So could government not restrict my right to keep one single shot bolt-action .22 rifle and bear it only in a locked case to and from a federally supervised shooting range and forbid me to possess more than a dozen rounds of ammunition for it?

It seems we are incrementally headed in that direction in some states (e.g., New Jersey).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You don't read these boards much, do you.

Actually, yes. But that has noting to do with the fact the left is conceding Heller/McDonald as settled law.

You know what, I'm just going to leave it there and say I hope to hell you're right. And that's no nonsense.

It has noting to do with me being ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’

Just look at the facts: Harry Reid avoids gun regulation like the plague, democratic senators got spent military brass back into civilian circulation, and the far left got almost zero political/Congressional support after Tucson.

***

Many are making the same mistake here that the Chicago legal team made in McDonald: rearguing Heller.

The evidence provided by the Majority in Heller is abundant in that the Second Amendment addresses the right of the individual to possess a firearm:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You don't read these boards much, do you.

Actually, yes. But that has noting to do with the fact the left is conceding Heller/McDonald as settled law.

You know what, I'm just going to leave it there and say I hope to hell you're right. And that's no nonsense.

It has noting to do with me being ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’

Just look at the facts: Harry Reid avoids gun regulation like the plague, democratic senators got spent military brass back into civilian circulation, and the far left got almost zero political/Congressional support after Tucson.

***

Many are making the same mistake here that the Chicago legal team made in McDonald: rearguing Heller.

The evidence provided by the Majority in Heller is abundant in that the Second Amendment addresses the right of the individual to possess a firearm:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

Except for that nagging fact that the left HAS argued that the second only means the States are allowed Militias and can restrict firearms within their States.

 

[candycorn]

It amplifies the need to further perfect the constitution. It was written at a time when the idea of firing more than one shot every 30 seconds to a minute was a pipe dream.

It can be argued on both sides.

 

[jillian]

Yes he did with some serious differences, But you knew that and are trying to justify murder.

why would i justify murder.

Why do you clean courthouses?
I mean other than your lack of an education or any useful skills?

lol.. i don't. though if i did, it would still be an honest days' work.

however, you should really stop attributing your lack of skills to me.

 

[jillian]

Yes he did with some serious differences, But you knew that and are trying to justify murder.

why would i justify murder.

the only "serious difference" i can see is that this one went bad and people got killed.

because no police endeavor ever goes bad, eh?

you might also want to reassess b/c you don't have a clue about my opinion of the AWB that used to be in effect or my opinion about guns.

You are easy to read.... The very first thing you did was deflect.

Maybe you would like to go on record.

ii'm not easy to read. i'm easy to pretend you can read if you engage in stereotypes. because, of course, if i'm not a rightwingnut, i *must* hate guns. and if i sounded like i was "deflecting", you might go back and look at what was said to me and how the issue was put to me. you at least tried to be civil....

reality... i don't have a problem with guns. my husband has guns and he takes our 14 year old trap shooting. i don't care to go shooting with them, but have used a gun. and unlike some people on both sides, i accept that all amendments are law. so you have a protected right to a gun. Does Heller accurately reflect the rights you have? I don't think so. It's a horrible decision which went far beyond the question presented. If you look at the dissent and the issues it raises, that is probably far more reflective of the rights conveyed by the 2nd. As to the AWB... the one that sundowned was a stupid, badly written law which allowed people to own one gun, but outlawed guns that were identical but for their grip. idiocy.

well, you asked.

 

[Old Rocks]

The only thing that an AK or similiar weopon is good for is killing other people. Weopons that are rapid firing semi-automatics with a 40 shot clip or more, are military weopons, no less than a tank or hand grenade. In the hands of a loon or gangster, they present a horrible danger to law enforcement officers as well as ordinery citizens.

As a gun owner since I was 12, I do not like these weopons in the hands of the general public, as they represent a real danger. Just experianced that sort of thing in my neighborhood. Someone sprayed a car and home with a weopong that sounded like a buzz. 15 to 20 shots in a second or two. And the home was not someone involved in criminal activities at all. The police stated it just looked random. Oh, yes, a six year old boy grazed by one of the bullets. Since kits are readily available to converty many of these semi-automatics to full automatics, we are putting war weopons on the streets and in the hands of the loons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only thing that an AK or similiar weopon is good for is killing other people.

Except that a good number of them are also very good at competitve target shooting and hunting.

Weopons that are rapid firing semi-automatics with a 40 shot clip or more, are military weopons, no less than a tank or hand grenade.

Glad you think so - and in doing to, it will be hard, if not impossible to show that they are then not the sort of weapon the 2nd was intended to protect.

As a gun owner since I was 12, I do not like these weopons in the hands of the general public, as they represent a real danger.

Simple posession endangers no one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

why would i justify murder.

the only "serious difference" i can see is that this one went bad and people got killed.

because no police endeavor ever goes bad, eh?

you might also want to reassess b/c you don't have a clue about my opinion of the AWB that used to be in effect or my opinion about guns.

You are easy to read.... The very first thing you did was deflect.

Maybe you would like to go on record.

ii'm not easy to read.

Yes you are. You're also a fraud.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The only thing that an AK or similiar weopon is good for is killing other people. Weopons that are rapid firing semi-automatics with a 40 shot clip or more, are military weopons, no less than a tank or hand grenade. In the hands of a loon or gangster, they present a horrible danger to law enforcement officers as well as ordinery citizens.

As a gun owner since I was 12, I do not like these weopons in the hands of the general public, as they represent a real danger. Just experianced that sort of thing in my neighborhood. Someone sprayed a car and home with a weopong that sounded like a buzz. 15 to 20 shots in a second or two. And the home was not someone involved in criminal activities at all. The police stated it just looked random. Oh, yes, a six year old boy grazed by one of the bullets. Since kits are readily available to converty many of these semi-automatics to full automatics, we are putting war weopons on the streets and in the hands of the loons.

The second amendment specifically protects weapons of a military type. The second is a two part Amendment, it conveys to the States the absolute right to have an armed militia separate from the Army and it conveys to the people the absolute right to own, possess, carry and use firearms, especially those of a military nature.