Federal Court Upholds Assault Weapons Ban.

LancelotLink said:
The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, meaning it trumps any law that goes against it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but every right in the Constitution and the BoR has limits, and various legislatures have long prohibited the use, possession, and/or carrying of "dangerous and unusual" weapons. This concept literally predates the Constitution.

We are NOT going to make every obnoxious weapons ban go away by simply convincing the courts that the operative clause of the 2A is holy writ, and therefore weapons bans are categorically unconstitutional. Not. Gonna. Happen. This would fly in the face of over 200 years of American jurisprudence.

There is theoretically a dividing line between weapons in "common use" (re: Heller) and weapons that are "dangerous and unusual". The judges in Friedman v. Highland Park essentially punted by refusing to comment on this dispute. However, as much as the decision sucks for our side, there's a good reason for the judges to rule this way: they feel that decisions about contentious matters are best left to the legislature, whose members reflect the will of the people. To use some terms frequently bandied around by the political right wing, to rule otherwise would be "legislating from the bench" by "activist judges".

This is an essential part of how the separation of powers is supposed to work, even if we don't always like the result.
Tom Servo said:
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.
Click to expand...
^^^This is the key right here.
 
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?
Click to expand...

It changes the classification of semi autos because that was what the law said. NO OTHER REASON.

NONE of the features used to define "assault weapon" has any functional effect on the operation of the weapon. It's all about what the guns looked like.

Yes, those states that kept their AWB laws have added to them since. What was legal in Conn in 94 and in 2004 is not legal now. (except as grandfathered in law).

If you believe that "infringed" means infringed, and not a variable term, then Heller was as much a loss as a win. The "in common use" opinion is so open to interpretation its almost as bad as "this court has been presented no evidence...".

The other side made up the definition of assault weapon, and got it into law. The Fed law expired, but they set the tone, we're stuck with it, and we have to ensure they also have to stick to it, and not allow them to get away with the legal definition being "what ever we say it is today".

I suppose What is an assault weapon? is still a valid question, considering how they have and want to change the definition. One does need to know what it is they are talking about, after all..

So, when they redefine the term, isn't is proper to ask, WHY? and when they say they didn't include this or that (the latest "evil" feature to get their attention), wouldn't a response be "Oh!, So you were wrong then?!"

What are you wrong about now?, etc. won't do any real good I expect, but I do dream of a headline that says "Sen Bumblestein admits assault weapon ban was wrong!" or something like that. With video would be nice, too...
 
Since assault weapons are anything or everything, all the antis need to do is close the bolt action and lever action loophole that allows the banned features on non semi autos. That would lead to the next law being passed to close the new loophole that allows featureless assault weapons by removing the features that made guns assault weapons in the first place.

The 2A is under attack from many directions, but I think the threat of AWB is greatly underestimated.

Granted there are other threats too. Lead ammo - ban it for the environment. Non lead ammo - ban it as armor piercing. Prohibited lists too, as another poster correctly pointed out, is a way to ever expand the class of people who are not allowed to have a second amendment right.

But at least there's a victory in Rhode Island.
 
..threat of AWB
Click to expand...
...is the camel nose because of the way it's being proffered.

Define some thing, some cosmetic, some superficial design appearance as
evil... and just take the rest of the elephant* one bite at a time after that.



* sorry`bout the mixed metaphor. ;)
 
LancelotLink said:
...I think the threat of AWB is greatly underestimated.
Click to expand...
I disagree, and this thread proves my reasoning.

Almost every gun enthusiast in America, even the relatively casual ones, understand the AWB and recognize its failings. What's more, we LOVE to discuss the issue, to the point of beating it to death.

The party that pushed through the last federal AWB was famously drubbed at the polls, and that drubbing is so notorious that political commentators bring it up even when discussing issues that have nothing to do with guns. ("Although hard-liners like it, moderate insiders fear that So-and-So's proposal could rally the opposition and cause the party to lose at the polls like they did after the Assault Weapons Ban.")

Virtually every intellectually honest politician in America today recognizes that the federal AWB was a failure on numerous levels, which has forced AWB supporters to ask for more severe measures that are correspondingly less likely to fly under the radar.

Lastly, the name incorporates the word BAN, which implies CONFISCATION. It sounds scary.

It's telling that the only states with an AWB are those in which the pro-AWB party enjoys almost unassailable levels of popular support independent of gun control.

UBC's and Lautenberg-type measures are underestimated. AWB's are not.
 
I don't think we should underestimate the significance of the fact that this was upheld by the Circuit Court of appeals.

ETA: in other words, the fact that this is the second to the last stop for the right to common semi automatic rifles protection under the Second Amendment is huge and should not be minimized.
 
Last edited:
re above: This rationale is chilling
“The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public
safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court
has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of ‘law-abiding,
responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

...especially when it relies on such reasoning as ...

"...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, and is inclined to find the weapons
fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.”

You have to be the Red Queen to truly adopt such an attitude into a record decison.
 
The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening
Click to expand...
That's where the doctrine of "intermediate" scrutiny gets us, and it's why we need the Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter.

Rights deemed fundamental (an important distinction Alito made in McDonald) are supposed to be covered by strict scrutiny. Under that doctrine, a law must serve a compelling government interest, it must be narrowly tailored to meet that interest, and it must do so by the least restrictive means.

Under that standard, Illinois' ban fails. The problem is getting the standard applied to the RKBA.
 
I'm all for a SCOTUS review of this decision, but remember that half of the Court is composed of jurists who think just like the judge who wrote the decision. They will happily vote to uphold it.

Elections matter. If you vote for progress, social justice, and other feel-good issues, you get the whole program, which includes gun bans and confiscation.

If this is upheld, OK, what's next? Millions of guns that can now be banned. State by state or town by town. Turn them in within 30 days. Then we come get them.
 
 
I thought that New York and Connecticut AWB were being ruled on by the 2nd Circuit? I lessoned to the argument and they combined them, sort of. Don't think there is a ruling yet thou.
 
LancelotLink said:
The reason I think AWB are the biggest long term threat to the 2A is as follows.

What the courts are starting to hold that AWB fall outside of the 2A.
Click to expand...

If the courts basically say that certain infringements to our rights somehow fall outside the Constitution, I'd say what little respect for our courts will go down the toilet along with any rights they choose to discard. Besides the broadly applied Assault Weapon Ban, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a push for national minimum standards regarding private gun ownership probably through a lawsuit against states with "lax" gun laws.
 
ok, I found what is reported to be NYC's definition of "assault weapon".

"As used herein, "Assault Weapon" generally means a firearm of such a nature and with such a high rate of fire and/or capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill or injure human beings."
Click to expand...

The various states that adopted a close variant of the Fed 94 AWB (and have added to it since) still have a more formal structure than this. However, it would only take a small effort to change them into essentially what NYC has. And I don't doubt there are people working to do just that.

As I read it, the rulers of NYC have given themselves the authority to decide what is "evil" essentially on a whim. Anything holding more than a single shot could be covered under the wording of their definition.
 
I think I mentioned in some decisions, the mantra that the average civilian usage is close up and 3 rounds is used to justify bans. You don't need an AR or Glock with 15 rounds to defend yourself.

Why the gun world says so! Think about when you read the posts about extra mags or higher capacity guns.

A SW Model 10 and a pump shotgun (that you only have to rack) - will handle all civilian needs. The other guns are only for evil and thus could be banned.
 
They'll ban the pump gun, too. All you really need is a device that will playback the sound of a pump action being racked to terrify and scatter the miscreants...
 
Connecticut is perhaps the poster child for how the "assault weapon" is a fluid definition.

From 1994 until 2013, Connecticut had an AWB that pretty closely mirrored the 1994 federal AWB. Any rifle that had a detachable magazine could have only one additional feature, from a Chinese menu that included the usual suspects: pistol grip, vertical foregrip, bayonet lug (I always loved that one -- there are so many drive-by bayonettings in the hood!), flash hider. So some friends in Connecticut bought AR-15s that were "post-ban" configuration and fully legal in Connecticut.

And then in 2013 Connecticut changed the definition to allow only ONE evil feature (I think NY did the same), making all those previously-legal, post-ban AR-15s instant assault weapons. The owners had to take the guns out of state, sel the guns out of state, or register them with the state police.

The irony is that an unintended consequence of this is that the people who had bought post-ban configuration rifles and who did register them are now free to add on all the evil features they could not previously have. As one of my friends pointed out when I was commiserating about the dumb laws, "Now that it's an assault weapon I can have all the features I want -- they can't make it any 'assaultier'."
 
Well, you must admit that we don't have a rash of drive by bayonettings now that the bayonet lug feature has been banned.:rolleyes:
 
After reading 4 of the State AWB laws, it is evident to me that there is no definition of what a "Assault Weapon" is. Some are markedly different and all that legal jargin has accomplished is a term "Assault Weapons" that is ill defined, ambiguous, equivocal, and ambiguity. I actually laughed out loud when reading New Jersey, California, New Yorks and Marylands AWB laws, they are very different in their tortured definitions. I am also amazed by the lack of any reasoning in their thought process.

Some my say that the term "Assault Weapons" is in the human vernacular and as such; it should be excepted. Well there are many terms and concepts that are undefined, ill concieved or have many different or implied meanings. People still do engauge in folly to this day. Referring to a Semi-automatic Rifle as a "Assault Weapon" is as logical as refering to a WHALE as a BIG MAC. They are both "Big", they are both edible (possably not eatable), MAC is short for Mackerel which is a creaturethat swims the ocean, kinda like a whale (but not), and both Whales and Big Macs are involved/related to commerse. See... Big Macs definition fits for a Whale. This is the tortured logic I speak of.

I stand by my earlyer assertions "there is no such thing as a Assault Weapon". When those that define something that could mean anything, then I have no faith in their ability to make the rules. It also appears, by Judge Easterbrooks ruling, that the corrective action is also broken. When a firearm that is 100 years old is now considered an "Assault Weapon", thus banned, something needs to change. I'm speaking of the bolt action 1903 Springfield with a 1917 Patterson Device, since it (a) fires semiauto (b) uses a 40 round detachable box magazine (c) Has a bayonet lug and (d) Has a wooden barrel shroud. I'd like to see a lawyer bring a 1903 into a court, show it to the judges and ask them if they understand that this AWB law will ban that 100 year old rifle.
 
Again, the term assault weapon is a creature of statute only. Each state that bans so called assault weapons will have a definition for them.

In New York, that definition is found in penal law section 265.00(22)

22. "Assault weapon" means
(a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable
magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of
the weapon;
(iii) a thumbhole stock;
(iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the
non-trigger hand;
(v) a bayonet mount;
(vi) a flash suppressor, muzzle break, muzzle compensator, or threaded
barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, muzzle break, or
muzzle compensator;
(vii) a grenade launcher; or
(b) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least one of the following
characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a thumbhole stock;
(iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the
non-trigger hand;
(iv) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds;
(v) an ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
(c) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable
magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a thumbhole stock;
(iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the
non-trigger hand;
(iv) capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the
pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(v) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash
suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(vi) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm
with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
(vii) a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is
unloaded; or
(viii) a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or
firearm;
(d) a revolving cylinder shotgun;
(e) a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic
pistol or weapon defined in subparagraph (v) of paragraph (e) of
subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 of this chapter as added by
chapter one hundred eighty-nine of the laws of two thousand and

otherwise lawfully possessed pursuant to such chapter of the laws of two
thousand prior to September fourteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four;
(f) a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic
pistol or weapon defined in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this
subdivision, possessed prior to the date of enactment of the chapter of
the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph;
(g) provided, however, that such term does not include: ...

The SAFE act simply modified the definition of an assault weapon to make it a one feature test instead of two features, and added thumbhole stocks as a banned feature.

Of the four states that have AWB, you will find four definitions. Also look at proposed changes to the definition of assault weapons for a taste of the future. California tried to redefine assault weapons recently to be any semi auto with a detachable magazine. Brown vetoed this bill, but it will rise again, both in Cali and elsewhere. This is the end goal, the zero feature test. Once assault weapons are banned, and upheld, the definitions can be changed to include most firearms designed after 1900.

A little known tidbit about the expired 1994 federal ban. Most know it grandfathered in weapons in existance prior to Sept 20, 1994, but it also excluded any weapon made on October 13, 1994 from being an assault weapon as well. It was probably a typo, but its a good way to illustrate just how arbitrary the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon is.
 
I say Bravo Zulu to those who live in those States with unconstitutional AWBs and refuse to comply. In my eyes they are 100% justified. To follow such a unjust law is no different than to follow a unlawful order. In many ways its like a self imposed slavery to comply. No free American could live under such a yoke.

I have lessoned to court cases where judges brow beat 2nd Amendment lawyers harshly with a scorned tone, "Does the 2A covers an RPG or hand grenades", and the lawyer stumbles to change the subject. For me it's simple. Yes your honor it does, now-a-days we have cops with body armor and armored personnel carriers(APC's) and it won't take long for the bad guys to figure out that they too can use them as well. APC's are being sold to civilians in the USA as we speak, so yes, should Bad Guys start using them, then RPG's would seem appropriate for home defense in that case. Also your honor, for the historical record "grenades" were invented in the 15th century. Additionally, British grenadiers were used in the revolutionary war. So yes, the founding fathers DID know about them before they wrote the Bill of Rights and agreed to ratified them. Thanks for asking judge.

Yea, I know, I'd probably loose the case. Good thing I went into military medicine instead of law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top