• US Supreme Court soon to decide on whether or not Assault Weapon Bans are Constitutional
    146 replies, posted
[quote]The U.S. Supreme Court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear a challenge to a suburban Chicago law banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons. If the court agrees to hear the case, it would cast a shadow over similar bans in seven states. But declining to take it up would boost efforts to impose such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings. Gun rights advocates are challenging a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois, that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. In passing the law, city officials cited the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The ban also lists certain specific rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms.[/quote] [url=http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapon-ban-u-s-supreme-court-n442056]NBC News[/url] This case is as major, if not moreso then the current ongoing Hughes Amendment case. In order to spin some perspective, if this goes to the floor and the Supreme Court files in favor of getting rid of Assault Weapon Bans, it effectively means that all AWB's across the board are going to be thrown out the window for being unconstitutional. Another aspect of this case is that if it goes through it would most likely force the current issues of gun control to be more geared towards actually dealing with the problems and loopholes in the system of background checks over attacking weapons thanks to their cosmetic features.
Given that the second amendment blatantly exists to protect the private ownership of firearms for killing members of the militia, the answer is yes, it is unconstitutional. The supreme court is weird though, so I'm sure we'll get a pretty nasty split.
10 bucks says the supreme court will decline to hear it simply for the sake of not opening up a can of worms.
Weren't all these laws invented when everyone was wielding hatchets and daggers and the really well equipped guys had muskets? It's not really a good idea to hold a fully automatic assault rifle to the same laws as a goddamn musket.
For those thinking it would make blanket bans unconstitutional, don't get your hopes up, the SC will issue a narrow ruling when there's this much regulation on the line, they'll probably say some feature bans are unconstitutional but since the law is already arbitrarily worded, lawmakers will reword the laws anyways
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48914157]Weren't all these laws invented when everyone was wielding hatchets and daggers and the really well equipped guys had muskets? It's not really a good idea to hold a fully automatic assault rifle to the same laws as a goddamn musket.[/QUOTE] I don't see how you can say this when the point was to allow weapons matching the military, specifically so that they couldn't be used to oppress the people.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48914157]Weren't all these laws invented when everyone was wielding hatchets and daggers and the really well equipped guys had muskets? It's not really a good idea to hold a fully automatic assault rifle to the same laws as a goddamn musket.[/QUOTE] "Assault weapon" doesn't mean fully automatic fire. Full-auto weapons are already practically impossible to acquire, and have been used in I think 1 murder in the last century in the US.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48914157]Weren't all these laws invented when everyone was wielding hatchets and daggers and the really well equipped guys had muskets? It's not really a good idea to hold a fully automatic assault rifle to the same laws as a goddamn musket.[/QUOTE] By your logic, the first amendment doesn't apply today because Britain was oppressing the people back then, and they're not now
[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;48914467]"Assault weapon" doesn't mean fully automatic fire. Full-auto weapons are already practically impossible to acquire, and have been used in I think 1 murder in the last century in the US.[/QUOTE] Full auto weapons are pretty common. Of course they're not used in major shootings all the time that hit the news, but in most of the dangerous cities, there are murders where a fully automatic weapon is used. But those murders never hit major news outlets, and stay purely local to the area or even state at the most.
for better or worse warfare has changed to the point where the 4th amendment is pretty irrelevant. When instated anyone could feasibly own their own gun, bayonet, horse etc and this was directly intended as a method to oppose tyranny. The logic being that if the government tried to oppress the populace the populace had the arms to actually put up a decent fight. The musket was pretty much the top of military technology and it being compact and relatively cheap meant power could actually be distributed. These days we live in an era of nuclear deterrents, air power, drones, artillery, battleships, and tanks. Even if it was legal for every citizen to own these things, its not like they could afford them. Small arms can only do so much militarily in the modern era. The amendment cant really serve it's original purpose, it's existence barely makes a difference for us today. So we're left with the *new* reasons for the amendment to exist like home defense, which probably isnt such a bad idea in a country that already has massive proliferation of small arms. Meh. Dont see any reason for the arbitrary assault weapon limitations. Might be good to tighten up casing marking and owner tracking/registration instead.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48914157]Weren't all these laws invented when everyone was wielding hatchets and daggers and the really well equipped guys had muskets? It's not really a good idea to hold a fully automatic assault rifle to the same laws as a goddamn musket.[/QUOTE] The smoothbore musket was the assult rifle of it's day.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48914037]Given that the second amendment blatantly exists to protect the private ownership of firearms for killing members of the militia, the answer is yes, it is unconstitutional. The supreme court is weird though, so I'm sure we'll get a pretty nasty split.[/QUOTE] Given that the Constitution gives the power to the Supreme Court to determine if something is or isn't Constitutional, then if they say something is Constitutional, then it is Constitutional - it'd be pretty hard to argue otherwise (in accordance with the law).
[QUOTE=Mattk50;48914666]for better or worse warfare has changed[/QUOTE] Isis pretty much proves that small arms make for a pain in the ass with numbers. Wars can't really be won with drones, look at vietnam, full force air support and we still lost because they had the numbers and the will to fight.
[QUOTE=Tinter;48914370]I don't see how you can say this when the point was to allow weapons matching the military, specifically so that they couldn't be used to oppress the people.[/QUOTE] The military's got tanks, helicopters, explosives, and apart from hardware, training civilians can't really match them either way
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48914157]Weren't all these laws invented when everyone was wielding hatchets and daggers and the really well equipped guys had muskets? It's not really a good idea to hold a fully automatic assault rifle to the same laws as a goddamn musket.[/QUOTE] The First Amendment was written before the invention of the megaphone, let alone the Internet- it's not a good idea to hold instant communication to millions of people to the same laws as shouting in the street. Right? Most lawyers generally interpret the Constitution is a living document and try to apply the reasoning behind the amendments, in which case the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to be armed to provide for the common defense and to overthrow the government if necessary. Whether or not that's still necessary in a modern context is another issue entirely, but the Second doesn't stop at just muskets, especially considering that in the era it was written there were weapons far more effective than muskets that the writers of the Constitution made no effort to restrict. [QUOTE=Rocko's;48914660]Full auto weapons are pretty common. Of course they're not used in major shootings all the time that hit the news, but in most of the dangerous cities, there are murders where a fully automatic weapon is used. But those murders never hit major news outlets, and stay purely local to the area or even state at the most.[/QUOTE] Illegally converted, unregistered full autos, sure, but registered Class III automatics have never been used to commit crimes. IIRC there have only been two cases of registered Class IIIs being used in a criminal case and both were ruled legitimate self-defense.
I do love America. "We have a gun problem. We can solve this by unbanning some guns!"
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;48914764]The military's got tanks, helicopters, explosives, and apart from hardware, training civilians can't really match them either way[/QUOTE] Which is why no modern army has ever been threatened by militias, ever, and especially not in the Middle East
[QUOTE=Craigewan;48914879]I do love America. "We have a gun problem. We can solve this by unbanning some guns!"[/QUOTE] Since keeping these guns banned worked so good.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;48914879]I do love America. "We have a gun problem. We can solve this by unbanning some guns!"[/QUOTE] So, I'm not saying its the guns fault but if you've got easy access to this its bound to happen i'm actually surprised that a terror style attack that just happen here of all places hasn't happen earlier in the US.
[QUOTE=Megadave;48915034]Since keeping these guns banned worked so good.[/QUOTE] Obviously not comparable to the US, but the UK and Australia would conform that banning them nationally has worked really well.
[QUOTE=Passing;48915150]So, I'm not saying its the guns fault but if you've got easy access to this its bound to happen i'm actually surprised that a terror style attack that just happen here of all places hasn't happen earlier in the US.[/QUOTE] Less than a tenth of a percent of firearm homicides are committed with 'assault weapons'. Overwhelmingly they're more commonly used for self-defense or hunting, since your average gangbanger who accounts for the overwhelming majority of gun crime is not strolling around the 'hood with a $600 AK or AR. The only reason they've been banned in the first place is because of Hollywood-fueled misconceptions about what gun crime in the US really looks like, coupled with high-profile but statistically negligible mass shootings. It's one thing when we debate whether or not handgun restrictions prevent criminals obtaining them illegally, but these 'assault weapons' are guns that the stats show overwhelmingly aren't used by criminals in the first place. There's little reason for them to be banned in the first place. [QUOTE=Code3Response;48915291]Obviously not comparable to the US, but the UK and Australia would conform that banning them nationally has worked really well.[/QUOTE] I'd like to point out that these guns are totally legal in New Zealand and they haven't had issues with them either.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48914157]Weren't all these laws invented when everyone was wielding hatchets and daggers and the really well equipped guys had muskets? It's not really a good idea to hold a fully automatic assault rifle to the same laws as a goddamn musket.[/QUOTE] It depends how you look at it. Consider this... In 1777, the Continental Congress put out an order for something known as a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock][I]Belton Flintlock[/I][/url]. All though it was never able to get into mass production, it was actually used to a small degree, and the same technology was later adopted for use by private civilians. Another weapon which existed in the 1700's was the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle]Girandoni Air Rifle[/url], which was purchased and used by the US government on numerous occasions through the late 1700's and early 1800's. The most well known usage of the Girandoni Air Rifle, is the use of it during the Lewis and Clark Expedition as a matter of impressing/intimidating native Americans. The idea was that the natives would see this alongside other weapons in use by the Lewis and Clark Expedition and would rather sign treaties then directly go into confrontation with them as was the case with other expedition inland. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pqFyKh-rUI[/media] [QUOTE=Craigewan;48914879]I do love America. "We have a gun problem. We can solve this by unbanning some guns!"[/QUOTE] The benefits of this case going through are astronomical for both the Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun lobbies. It'll finally force people to actually come to terms that "Assault Weapons" are not responsible for that many murders(one hundred to one hundred fifty every year), and that other issues need to be addressed.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;48914764]The military's got tanks, helicopters, explosives, and apart from hardware, training civilians can't really match them either way[/QUOTE] Aren't you forgetting Afghanistan?
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;48914764]The military's got tanks, helicopters, explosives, and apart from hardware, training civilians can't really match them either way[/QUOTE] At this current moment, the US military full expects a 40% desertion rate in the chances of any civil insurrection in the United States. In some areas, mostly the Midwest, that number increases from anywhere to 50% to 95%. Another thing to take into account is that the current infrastructure in the United States is utter shit thanks to decades of neglect and abuse. All it realistically would take for someone to fuck over a major city is throwing a small explosive satchel onto a transformer. You also have to come to terms with the fact that most US households only have something like half a month's supply of food. If most of the agricultural hubs in the United States go rebel mode, you can expect that by the first winter, at least three to ten percent of the country will be starving in major US cities. I don't realistically have any statistics, but it's also fair to say that most of the US Militia Movement is actually made up of military veterans, police officers(retired or otherwise), and members of the US National Guard. In otherwords, most of these guys already have training with military equipment and probably have more range time then the standard military.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;48914666]for better or worse warfare has changed to the point where the 4th amendment is pretty irrelevant. When instated anyone could feasibly own their own gun, bayonet, horse etc and this was directly intended as a method to oppose tyranny. The logic being that if the government tried to oppress the populace the populace had the arms to actually put up a decent fight. The musket was pretty much the top of military technology and it being compact and relatively cheap meant power could actually be distributed. These days we live in an era of nuclear deterrents, air power, drones, artillery, battleships, and tanks. Even if it was legal for every citizen to own these things, its not like they could afford them. Small arms can only do so much militarily in the modern era. The amendment cant really serve it's original purpose, it's existence barely makes a difference for us today. So we're left with the *new* reasons for the amendment to exist like home defense, which probably isnt such a bad idea in a country that already has massive proliferation of small arms. Meh. Dont see any reason for the arbitrary assault weapon limitations. Might be good to tighten up casing marking and owner tracking/registration instead.[/QUOTE] It's not about overthrowing the millitary, it's about potentially being able to put up a fight the government can't afford. Obviously I'm not talking just about finances.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48915291]Obviously not comparable to the US, but the UK and Australia would conform that banning them nationally has worked really well.[/QUOTE] The difference is, with the UK at least, privately owned guns had never been anywhere near as prolific as in the US. As you said, comparing the two is kinda useless, it's easy to enforce restrictions on something when they're barely present to begin with, but if the US government were to suddenly try and implement the same firearms laws as the UK, what do you think would happen?
[QUOTE=SKEEA;48915374]Aren't you forgetting Afghanistan?[/QUOTE] The Taliban never went toe to toe with the United States since they almost entirely rely on things like IED's and VBIED's now, meant to harass and demoralize troops.
AWB is one of the most ineffective legislation ever. Its only meant for warm and fuzzy feelings and not effective change. Reviews from the 90's AWB shows this. Since over 90% of "gun crime" is handguns which are specifically covered by a previous Supreme Court ruling. I also have to laugh at their attempts to regulate a box and spring. Either way, none of these laws actually perform in the real world. They don't solve crime issues, they only are either useless or just make more criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens. They have to solve the root cause of gangs. Which is poverty, drugs, and broken households.
I kind of hope they rule that everyone's right to a musket can not be infringed upon, but everything else is fair game. Not that I want guns banned but I think it would be really funny watching the NRA react to that.
Something like 98% of gun crimes are with handguns. Or it might have even been 99.3% I don't recall. They're easy to conceal, while a rifle isn't concealable at all, and more dangerous than an 'assault weapon' like an AR-15 because the rounds are bigger (Even 9mm) and travel slower. You can get hi-caps for handguns and even with 15 round 9mm magazines your rate of fire because of reloading will be negligible to a 30 round assault rifle. They both fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and it doesn't take 3 seconds to reload when you're holding your mags, even for an inexperienced shooter Banning these types of weapons doesn't do shit. It's just a LOOK WE'RE DOING SOMETHING TO DESERVE OUR $180,000 A YEAR SALARY type of thing. If they really cared, they'd go after handguns In either case, good luck trying to enforce strict gun regulation now. It's really too late to go that route. We have 42% of the planet's firearms
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.