Armed_Chicagoan
New member
Friedman is in Federal court, while Wilson is in state court. Illinois courts move s-l-o-w.
Federal Court Upholds Assault Weapons Ban.
- Thread starter steve4102
- Start date
leadcounsel
Moderator
I disagree. I'm extremely pro gun, and recognize this is ONE of many threats.
But most of Congress and most states aren't going to be able to enact significant AWB in 40 states or more. So, there is an remedy... don't live in the 10 anti-gun states. The AWB failed, and most leaders in most states who are intellectually honest realize this. Absent something odd, the AWB isn't going to happen again in 40 of the states in my lifetime. It is alive and well in about 10 states in some form.
The BIGGEST threats are the feel-good anti-gun laws such as the bans on guns due to Domestic Violence misdemeanor convictions (Lautenberg). Restraining orders will do the same thing. These are flim-flam end-around gun bans that are sold as protecting victims. But it's just easy gun bans. If you understand how these work, along with the simple, free and fast process, they are used with growing frequency and in growing categories by disgruntled, vindictive, upset, or used tactically by ex-spouses, ex lovers, roommates, family members, and even acquaintances. Someone slapped with one of these can plan to spend $10,000 to fight to keep his 2A rights, and stands a chance of losing! It's an evil misuse of the law, but it happens hundreds of times every day to people who are not domestic abusers - thus violating the spirit and intention of the law. That's my biggest concern - some wacko who fires one of these missiles.
The BIGGEST threats are also the ballot initiatives requiring "common sense gun control" like registration, going through dealers and eliminating face-to-face transactions, and AWB style bans and limiting other rights. WA and CO both passed various anti-gun measures in the last couple years.
carguychris
New member
+1, and I'd like to say "Thanks!" for the extremely compelling and spot-on response.leadcounsel said:
Many pro-gun arguments against AWB's are actually pretty weak, as Glenn pointed out here, and as I've previously written in other threads.
The key point is that most of the major anti-gun arguments in favor of an AWB fail for the same basic underlying reason as most of the pro-gun arguments against them: AWB's as currently and previously enacted don't really disarm anybody,* at least not anyone who's smart enough to understand the fine points of the law, and it's easy to be smart enough in the days of instant information via the Interwebz.
Does an AWB suck? Sure. But widespread de facto criminalization of mere gun ownership sucks a LOT more, and IMHO it's important to distinguish between the two concepts.
*Edit to add footnote: I believe that this is the ultimate reason why AWB's have been shown to have a more-or-less inconclusive effect on crime; if you set aside exceedingly rare events like mass shootings, most gun crimes consist of (a) a crook WITH a gun victimizing someone with NO gun - no shots fired- and/or (b) a crook in possession of a gun in violation of existing law. In these cases, taking the crook's 17rd mag away does nothing to address the cause or nature of the crime.
Last edited:
"an AWB doesn't really disarm anybody"
I disagree. First, People would have to agree on what is to be banned. In answering that first question, "what is a Assault Weapon"? Anyone that knows anything about firearms understands that it is a question without a rational answer. In the words of Ursula K. Le Guin ; "There are no right answers to wrong questions.". Thus, the issue becomes one of banning a item without a discernable definition, so anything could fall into that meaning. This is and was the intent IMO of the AWB program.
A true AWB would/could absolutely disarm the entire population. Since any firearm could be categorized as such since there is no such classification. To think otherwise is a folly IMO. It amounts to a ban on "scary guns", well what the hell is a scary gun?
I disagree. First, People would have to agree on what is to be banned. In answering that first question, "what is a Assault Weapon"? Anyone that knows anything about firearms understands that it is a question without a rational answer. In the words of Ursula K. Le Guin ; "There are no right answers to wrong questions.". Thus, the issue becomes one of banning a item without a discernable definition, so anything could fall into that meaning. This is and was the intent IMO of the AWB program.
A true AWB would/could absolutely disarm the entire population. Since any firearm could be categorized as such since there is no such classification. To think otherwise is a folly IMO. It amounts to a ban on "scary guns", well what the hell is a scary gun?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The old AWB failed in the eyes of DOJ sponsored research because:
1. The existing stock of grandfathered weapons was adequate to meet demand for those guns.
2. New guns with equal efficacy were available as the ban principles only affected cosmetics.
Thus, the gun world argued that AWB's in general were stupid. The antigun world wanted total bans on semi-auto guns that had the ability to take high capacity magazines and total bans on such magazines. That might by attrition take down the stocks of existing guns over time (foolish conjecture).
Plus, confiscatory policies would demand turn-ins of existing guns. That would reduce the number available somewhat as law abiding folks would turn them in. Yes, we know that many would hide them but that renders them useless for common applications. Can't go to a match or hunt with them. Use them for SD and get all kinds of legal trouble. If you reduce the law abiding guns, you reduce their leakage to criminals.
Thus, there would be a move for just firearms clearly seen as just sporting - bolt action rifles and O/U shotguns. Total handgun bans (except for some esoteric sports) would follow.
CarguyChris is correct in that the bans that existed or exist now are ineffective.There are those weird pump action or NY compliable AR monstrosities. Probably quite a usable gun.
The fear is a total and confiscatory mandated law. I don't see that happening in the forseeable future on a federal level. States - yes. Depends on the gun vs. antigun populations of those states.
1. The existing stock of grandfathered weapons was adequate to meet demand for those guns.
2. New guns with equal efficacy were available as the ban principles only affected cosmetics.
Thus, the gun world argued that AWB's in general were stupid. The antigun world wanted total bans on semi-auto guns that had the ability to take high capacity magazines and total bans on such magazines. That might by attrition take down the stocks of existing guns over time (foolish conjecture).
Plus, confiscatory policies would demand turn-ins of existing guns. That would reduce the number available somewhat as law abiding folks would turn them in. Yes, we know that many would hide them but that renders them useless for common applications. Can't go to a match or hunt with them. Use them for SD and get all kinds of legal trouble. If you reduce the law abiding guns, you reduce their leakage to criminals.
Thus, there would be a move for just firearms clearly seen as just sporting - bolt action rifles and O/U shotguns. Total handgun bans (except for some esoteric sports) would follow.
CarguyChris is correct in that the bans that existed or exist now are ineffective.There are those weird pump action or NY compliable AR monstrosities. Probably quite a usable gun.
The fear is a total and confiscatory mandated law. I don't see that happening in the forseeable future on a federal level. States - yes. Depends on the gun vs. antigun populations of those states.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
How so?steve4102 said:
I don't use marijuana (or anything else) and never have. If my state were to legalize marijuana tomorrow, that would not make me an instant felon. Conversely, today marijuana is not legal in my state. Those who currently use marijuana are already breaking the law, and seeing the state legalize MJ tomorrow would not change that.
The only people who might "become felons" when states legalize marijuana are those who don't use MJ now but who would use it if it were legal. I may be completely off base, but I just don't see millions of people falling into that category.
carguychris
New member
Hasty and sloppy wording. Post corrected to better reflect my intent.bandaid1 said:
I'm cognizant of the "slippery slope" pro-gun argument against AWB's. My point is that, under most AWB-type regulations that have been enacted, law-abiding would-be gun owners can still obtain A GUN, even if it's not the gun they really want. In fact, the response to previous AWB-type schemes has typically been the purchase of MANY not-quite-the-right-guns by enthusiasts symbolically thumbing their noses at the law.
Furthermore, an AWB inherently smacks of confiscation, and the political fallout from the original federal AWB has prompted all but the most zealous far-left politicians to repeat the mantra of "No Confiscation" so many times that it's going to be really hard for them to back-pedal on this.
The underlying larger point is that laws aimed at whittling down the pool of lawful gun OWNERS are a more real and nefarious threat. Americans may not like "bans," but they like "wife beaters" and "terrorists" even less. (Speaking of which, I'm expecting the fallout from the recent Garland attack to gel into another attempt at banning so-called "terror suspects" from gun ownership. Membership at the wrong mosque should NOT be a NICS disqualifier for an otherwise law-abiding American.)
"an AWB doesn't really disarm anybody"
I disagree. First, People would have to agree on what is to be banned. In answering that first question, "what is a Assault Weapon"? Anyone that knows anything about firearms understands that it is a question without a rational answer. In the words of Ursula K. Le Guin ; "There are no right answers to wrong questions.". Thus, the issue becomes one of banning a item without a discernable definition, so anything could fall into that meaning. This is and was the intent IMO of the AWB program.
A true AWB would/could absolutely disarm the entire population. Since any firearm could be categorized as such since there is no such classification. To think otherwise is a folly IMO. It amounts to a ban on "scary guns", well what the hell is a scary gun?
I disagree. First, People would have to agree on what is to be banned. In answering that first question, "what is a Assault Weapon"? Anyone that knows anything about firearms understands that it is a question without a rational answer. In the words of Ursula K. Le Guin ; "There are no right answers to wrong questions.". Thus, the issue becomes one of banning a item without a discernable definition, so anything could fall into that meaning. This is and was the intent IMO of the AWB program.
A true AWB would/could absolutely disarm the entire population. Since any firearm could be categorized as such since there is no such classification. To think otherwise is a folly IMO. It amounts to a ban on "scary guns", well what the hell is a scary gun?
I personally dislike the term terrorist. That label, like many others, seems to be used vilify someone, why not just call them the boogieman . Terrorism is a tactic, not a people. In this ruling Judge Easterbrook wrongfully labels the M16 and AK47 as sub-machine guns. John T Thompson is probably still rolling in his grave on that one. If a ruling Circuit Judge is using incorrect terminology maybe he should just GTS (Google That Sh#t).
In Heller, the DC officials argued that as long as people have access to rifles and shotguns then the ban on handguns was constitutional, but the SCOTUS said NO. With State Governments attempting to Ban semi-auto rifles, which amounts to the same thing, it appears they skipped over that fact. I cannot see the SCOTUS letting this slide. At least I hope not. Judge Easterbrook needs to be re-educated again like he was in the Mcdonald case.
In Heller, the DC officials argued that as long as people have access to rifles and shotguns then the ban on handguns was constitutional, but the SCOTUS said NO. With State Governments attempting to Ban semi-auto rifles, which amounts to the same thing, it appears they skipped over that fact. I cannot see the SCOTUS letting this slide. At least I hope not. Judge Easterbrook needs to be re-educated again like he was in the Mcdonald case.
Before you go off on a tear about how to use, or mis use English, the AWB provides a very specific definition of "assault weapon". It consists of certain listed firearms, by name and model, and any semi auto firearms that have two or more of the features listed in the law.
BY LAW, as written by the antigun "experts", no full auto weapon is an assault weapon. NOT ONE. An AR-15 can be an assault weapon, an M-16 cannot be, under the definition in law.
They wrote a very specific "shopping list" of guns and features into the law, to essentially cover as many of the military looking semi autos as they could. AND, at the same time, spent a lot of effort TALKING about full autos and generally trying to confuse people as much as they could.
It's been discussed in detail many time in past threads. Do some searching and you'll probably get way more info than you want.
But please, don't try to say an "assault weapon" is anything someone assaults someone with. Its correct in English, but its not the definition used in US law covering "Assault Weapons".
That ship has sailed.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Most state AWBs follow(ed) the federal law and copied the definition. Post-Sandy Hook, Connecticut revised theirs to lower the allowable number of "evil" features from two to one.
I was not intending to change the written definition. My point is that it has become a dynamic definition.
California's AWB, is not the same as Connecticut's which differs from the 1994 Fed version.
The term may have a basic starting point, but it morphs depending on circumstances in the state its being implemented in.
And I contend that makes the question of "What is an assault weapon?" a valid query.
How does one ask SCOTUS to stop banning something which has such a varied definition?
California's AWB, is not the same as Connecticut's which differs from the 1994 Fed version.
The term may have a basic starting point, but it morphs depending on circumstances in the state its being implemented in.
And I contend that makes the question of "What is an assault weapon?" a valid query.
How does one ask SCOTUS to stop banning something which has such a varied definition?
Last edited:
I'm no legal scholar, just a retired military man. Now some people will say that a Assault "Weapon" is a "semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine and has at least one or two of these features: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel, barrel shroud, a bayonet mount, or a muzzle-mounted grenade launcher" as in the AWB of 1994. The problem with this definition is that most of this discribes features vs firearms classification.
Take for example a bolt action rifle without any sights, a bolt action rifle with open iron sights and a bolt action rifle with a optical scope mounted on it. The addition of iron sights or a scope is a feature of a bolt action rifle. They do not change the classification of the rifle. Thus, the term "Assault Weapon" is a non-classification of a firearm. These features do not change that classification because they don't effect the basic operation of the firearm and never will.
Those that use the term "assault weapon" to describe a semiautomatic rifle, show a lack of firearms knowledge and are just attempting to confuse people into thinking that a "assault weapon" and a "Assault Rifle" are the same thing. Which they are NOT.
If you take all the features that make a "Assault Weapon" and hang them on a lever action, pump action or bolt action rifle, it doesn't change their classification, so why does it change the classification of a semi auto?
Take for example a bolt action rifle without any sights, a bolt action rifle with open iron sights and a bolt action rifle with a optical scope mounted on it. The addition of iron sights or a scope is a feature of a bolt action rifle. They do not change the classification of the rifle. Thus, the term "Assault Weapon" is a non-classification of a firearm. These features do not change that classification because they don't effect the basic operation of the firearm and never will.
Those that use the term "assault weapon" to describe a semiautomatic rifle, show a lack of firearms knowledge and are just attempting to confuse people into thinking that a "assault weapon" and a "Assault Rifle" are the same thing. Which they are NOT.
If you take all the features that make a "Assault Weapon" and hang them on a lever action, pump action or bolt action rifle, it doesn't change their classification, so why does it change the classification of a semi auto?
LancelotLink
New member
The reason I think AWB are the biggest long term threat to the 2A is as follows.
The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, meaning it trumps any law that goes against it. Thus, if congress passed a law authorizing members of the House of Representatives to remain in office for 8 years instead of 2, it would be struck down as unconstitutional (hopefully).
Under the bill of rights, the government is prohibited from passing any law that prohibits free speech, or compels a criminal defendant to testify, or denies the right to counsel.
That's how its supposed to work.
For the 2A, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We all know that. That means any law that infringes on this right should be unconstitutional.
What the courts are starting to hold that AWB fall outside of the 2A. Think about what this means. We know that so called assault weapons are creatures of statute; they have no hard and fast definition. 2 features, 1 feature, 0 features all have been floating around, as well as what features constitution an assault weapon. Assault weapons are whatever the legislature wants them to be.
Since AW fall outside the 2A according to some courts, it means laws that define weapons as assault weapons are not constrained by the 2A.
If this trend continues, it means that complete bans on AW would be allowed, and all that needs to be done is define everything except muskets are assault weapons.
This trend is not limited to the 2A. There's a lot of talk about hate speech being outside the 1A too, meaning that if some sort of speech is statutorily defined as hate speech, it can be banned. Its a different right but its the same kind of convoluted logic.
The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, meaning it trumps any law that goes against it. Thus, if congress passed a law authorizing members of the House of Representatives to remain in office for 8 years instead of 2, it would be struck down as unconstitutional (hopefully).
Under the bill of rights, the government is prohibited from passing any law that prohibits free speech, or compels a criminal defendant to testify, or denies the right to counsel.
That's how its supposed to work.
For the 2A, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We all know that. That means any law that infringes on this right should be unconstitutional.
What the courts are starting to hold that AWB fall outside of the 2A. Think about what this means. We know that so called assault weapons are creatures of statute; they have no hard and fast definition. 2 features, 1 feature, 0 features all have been floating around, as well as what features constitution an assault weapon. Assault weapons are whatever the legislature wants them to be.
Since AW fall outside the 2A according to some courts, it means laws that define weapons as assault weapons are not constrained by the 2A.
If this trend continues, it means that complete bans on AW would be allowed, and all that needs to be done is define everything except muskets are assault weapons.
This trend is not limited to the 2A. There's a lot of talk about hate speech being outside the 1A too, meaning that if some sort of speech is statutorily defined as hate speech, it can be banned. Its a different right but its the same kind of convoluted logic.
You have hit upon an absolutely crucial point. By totally ignoring the "in general usage" aspect of what has now become "America's Rifle", we get...
"the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are
commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in
the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right,”
The Recent MD decision
By simply ignoring the (1) established fact of no less that 2.5 million* AWB in common possession; (2) the lawful use by all but a literal handful of possessors; (3) defining only defense in the home as the purpose of 2A, and (4) "... substantially serving the government’s interest in protecting public safety” as the defining criteria....
... they literally open the floodgates of sweeping the whole purpose of the 2A aside.
*http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html
.
Last edited:
It certainly has, and its voyage began in 1989. When California passed the Roberti-Ross Act, it put the meme of "assault weapons" in the public mind. When it survived a court challenge, it led to a nationwide push. 1994 wasn't the beginning; it was a culmination of efforts.
The idea of "assault weapons" is firmly entrenched in the popular psyche, and it's not going away any time soon. We can gripe all we want about the semantics, but we're just preaching to the choir.
(Yeah, I can use the Maserati to drive the kids to school and such, but it's still a race car in the minds of most onlookers.)
The thing to remember now is this: if the AR-15 is an "assault weapon," then Joe and Marge Sixpack own "assault weapons." Millions of Americans own "assault weapons." Make sure all those people understand that. Make sure they are involved and voting.
If we keep new bans from passing, we keep ourselves from having to expend the effort and money on lawsuits we seem to be losing pretty constantly.
(Also, I don't actually have a Maserati.)