Assault Weapon Bans in CA and elswhere

[maestro pistolero]

The whole assault weapon nonsense must be dealt with directly in due course. It is not the first battle to win, however. Until any law abiding person can carry a functional firearm for self-protection in all but the most sensitive places, we need to make that a priority.

Self-protection along with the ability to be armed for militia purposes lies at the core of the right.

Although the SCOTUS has recognized the that the right exists separately from the militia purpose, the militia purpose is still valid and must be considered when the types of weapons that are protected are defined.

1. What, exactly, would a militia rifle look like, if not exactly like the standard-issue small arm of our military?

2. Isn't it essential that weapons suitable for fulfilling the militia capability be up to the task in terms of their performance characteristics? Mustn't they be sufficient to be able to repel adversaries such as foreign terrorists?

3. Wouldn't the weapons need to be equal or greater in efficacy to the weapons they are likely to oppose? Like an AK47 or an FN for example?

4. Would any foreign or domestic terrorist carry a weapon with 10 round magazine and a bullet button?

5. Doesn't prohibiting the typical, common, military style weapons to law-abiding folks eviscerate the amendment for it's only stated purpose?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

EBRs have been seen as instruments only for killing and evil by the two past presidents and the current one. The supposed front runner for the opposition party feels the same way as had recent failed presidential major candidates. Recall the Zumbo effect.

Went to a carbine match yesterday, and I must say I was horrified by those guns.

It's an old debate - only the rich and famous can have a O/U shotgun to shoot gooses and endangered birdies from the sky.

On a positive note, the shops are full of such guns. The NSSF is promoting them however as modern sporting rifles to take away the EBR stigma. That negates the militia argument by trying to make them NOT seem as such a gun.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[shortwave]

Hope this makes sense

It does.

Too, as long as 'we the people' keep voting for politicians that are anti-gun, there will be a problem with stupid gun laws and the 2nd Amendment in general.

 

[maestro pistolero]

EBRs have been seen as instruments only for killing and evil by the two past presidents and the current one.

And indeed, their primary intended targets when designed were humans. Shrinking away from that fact, we back away from the militia purpose and the primary purpose of the weapons that the second amendment protects, which is to oppose both foreign and domestic threats. Human targets, in other words.

Now before you all think I'm donning an aluminum sombrero, let me say that I don't believe our democracy is poised on any precipice of tyranny yet. I've said it before, but the greatest enemy of democracy is apathy and ignorance, not gun control.

The strength and integrity of our democratic republic, combined with the preservation of the right to possess and carry enough gun to enforce the purpose of the 2nd amendment will likely be all the deterrent that's necessary.

But we must have weapons sufficient to oppose any likely foe, otherwise the amendment is a dead letter. That doesn't mean tanks and artillery. All conflicts eventually funnel down into a door to door affair. It's ALWAYS about rifles, even today. Look at Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq. All the might in the world hasn't beaten those rebels into submission in any meaningful way.

If the AR15 isn't the most protected weapon in the land according to the deepest meaning of the 2A, then I'll eat my aluminum sombrero.

 

[maestro pistolero]

One more thing, when all terrorists and criminals have only 10 round magazines, and bullet-buttoned AR15s (i.e. no removable magazines), then CA's assault weapon ban and magazine limit may be constitutional.

 

[TheGoldenState]

One more thing, when all terrorists and criminals have only 10 round magazines, and bullet-buttoned AR15s (i.e. no removable magazines), then CA's assault weapon ban and magazine limit may be constitutional.

Don't forget about pistol registration and background checks

 

[maestro pistolero]

Don't forget about pistol registration and background checks

And, new in 2014 for California, rifle registration, the folly of which is even obvious to our anti-gun neighbors in Canada.

Seriously, I think that registration may pass constitutional muster. If, as I am arguing here, that the militia clause still has validity, then the state certainly has a valid stake in knowing who has what for the purposes of raising a militia. Much as I might like to have it both ways, I'd rather the militia clause be used to strike AWBs (assault weapon bans).

 

[hermannr]

The real problem is complacency...it doesn't effect me here and now, so I don't care. That is how this stuff happens.

Doesn't matter if it is about open carry (that is the attitude, I conceal, or I don't carry, so it doesn't effect me) "assault weapon", a full heavy machine gun or a tank.

That is one of the good reasons to Open Carry...normalize the sight of firearms in the hands of joe citizen, get "assault weapon" bans removed by making them more visible...the voting public need to see that there is no danger to them by these things/actions.