Gary L. Griffiths
New member
BOHICA We all know it. Sooner or later, we're going to see Assault Weapons Ban II -- the encore. And with the Brady Bunch pushing to make all autoloaders with detachable magazines, pump-actions, and weapons with tubular magazines of >10-rd capacity categorized as "Assault Weapons."
And that may not be a bad thing. Here's why:
Heller is now the law of the land, with Miller still in effect, and quoted approvingly in that decision. A new Federal assault weapons ban would clearly be subject to the Second Amendment, regardless of its incorporation status.
In Heller the Supreme Court has declared prohibitions against owning a class of weapon (handguns) Unconstitutional, and has quoted Miller about "the people" having a right to keep and bear arms "in common use at the time." While it might be an uphill battle to prove that military style semi-auto rifles (e.g., AR-15s, AK-47s, M-1 Carbines, etc.) are "in common use," more than half the shotguns in this country are either autoloaders or pumps, and the vast majority of repeating tube-fed .22 rifles have magazine capacities of greater than 10 rds.
I could see any such a ban on a fast track to the Supreme Court, with a resulting 6-3 or 7-2 decision saying, in effect, "Look, we've already ruled on this, WTF do you people think you're trying to pull?"
Moreover, the threatened loss of their duck guns and their kids' .22s would enrage millions of Fudds with dire consequences for the Party In Power in the next Congressional elections.
Finally, it would head off an ill-advised attempt to take the '86 full-auto ban to the court, which would almost certainly narrow the Heller ruling, and engrave the ban in stone for all time.
Yeah, to my thinking, not a bad thing at all.
And that may not be a bad thing. Here's why:
Heller is now the law of the land, with Miller still in effect, and quoted approvingly in that decision. A new Federal assault weapons ban would clearly be subject to the Second Amendment, regardless of its incorporation status.
In Heller the Supreme Court has declared prohibitions against owning a class of weapon (handguns) Unconstitutional, and has quoted Miller about "the people" having a right to keep and bear arms "in common use at the time." While it might be an uphill battle to prove that military style semi-auto rifles (e.g., AR-15s, AK-47s, M-1 Carbines, etc.) are "in common use," more than half the shotguns in this country are either autoloaders or pumps, and the vast majority of repeating tube-fed .22 rifles have magazine capacities of greater than 10 rds.
I could see any such a ban on a fast track to the Supreme Court, with a resulting 6-3 or 7-2 decision saying, in effect, "Look, we've already ruled on this, WTF do you people think you're trying to pull?"
Moreover, the threatened loss of their duck guns and their kids' .22s would enrage millions of Fudds with dire consequences for the Party In Power in the next Congressional elections.
Finally, it would head off an ill-advised attempt to take the '86 full-auto ban to the court, which would almost certainly narrow the Heller ruling, and engrave the ban in stone for all time.
Yeah, to my thinking, not a bad thing at all.