Assault Weapons Ban Legal?

All gun laws are an infringement...

Click to expand...

As I learned reading Heller, apparently several colonies/states had gun laws in effect before and after the signing of the Constitution, including:

“A 1783 Massachusetts law forbade the
residents of Boston to “take into” or “receive into” “any
Dwelling House, Stable, Barn, Out-house, Ware-house,
Store, Shop or other Building” loaded firearms, and permitted
the seizure of any loaded firearms that “shall be
found” there.” Heller page 59

“...founding-era laws that
he says “restricted the firing of guns within the city limits
to at least some degree” in Boston, Philadelphia and New
York.” Ibid page 60.

"...gunpowder-storage laws...required only that excess gunpowder be kept in a
special container or on the top floor of the home." Ibid page 60.

“...a Rhode Island law that simply levied a 5-
shilling fine on those who fired guns in streets and taverns,…” Ibid page 61.

rbernie: "I believe that this is true. The Heller decision made it clear that you cannot ban a class or category of weapon. It does not say that you can not ban specific evil features, so long as you can argue that the class itself is still available."

Iron sights? Barrels longer than 16 1/4 inches and shorter than 16 inches? Stocks constructed of non-renewable resources? Receivers made of anything other than gold-plated forged titanium?

Iron sights? Barrels longer than 16 1/4 inches and shorter than 16 inches? Stocks constructed of non-renewable resources? Receivers made of anything other than gold-plated forged titanium?

Click to expand...

IANAL.

But, as I said, I would imagine that so long as you could argue that the class of weapon itself was still available and 'in common use' then specific features could be regulated. That was certainly my takeaway from reading Heller, albeit from a layperson's perspective.

Answering your question would likely require that you try to argue that mandating 16.01"-16.24" barrels did not materially prevent ownership. If you could see reasonably winning that argument, then there ya go.

Iron sights? Barrels longer than 16 1/4 inches and shorter than 16 inches? Stocks constructed of non-renewable resources? Receivers made of anything other than gold-plated forged titanium?

Click to expand...

The key is whether or not banning any of those things would result in a ban on a certain class of weapon.

Of course, since people here would argue that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon", then we really don't have to worry about there being another assault ban anyway, right?

No, it's not illegal. Stupid maybe, but not unconstitutional. Under an originalist meaning, "arms" would mean swords, knives, flintlocks, and muzzle-loaders.

The BROADEST originalist interp. would be a reasonable gun to defend yourself. Basic rifles, shotguns, handguns yes. Assault guns probably not. There's nothing particularly special or necessary about "assault" guns.

Laws restricting gun ownership in any fashion are an infringement and any case made before the Supreme Court stating such would be upheld; particularly with this court. A 5-4 ruling is still a victory. We just need to make sure that all of "OUR" justices stick around until Obama is out of Office!

The probability of a new AWB is directly proportionate to Obama's popularity. It is an issue that will split Dems and Reps and cross party lines. It will cause a political firestorm. Obama owes anti-gunners and has undoubtedly committed, behind closed doors, to institute another AWB; the only issue is when? A spectacular mass murder, ala Columbine, could spark this. But, it has to be done when Obama has the political capital to pay for it.

Get ready, it's coming, just a question of when, and how draconian it will be.

So what defines an "assault" weapon? That's the problem I have.

Click to expand...

People frequently ask this question on gun boards, and many will say that there is no such thing as an assault weapon.

However, it was gun magazines that created the term. We all know what it means. The federal government has even gone so far as to define what an assault weapon is (just look at the old AWB language, and it will tell you). The definition is codified into law now, so there is no reason to raise the question of what constitutes an assault weapon. The government has decided for you, and they are the final authority on the matter.

So when a gun owner tells you that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, he is just being stupid for the sake of argument.

The Heller decision made it clear that you cannot ban a class or category of weapon. It does not say that you can not ban specific evil features, so long as you can argue that the class itself is still available.

Click to expand...

Isn't that kind of like saying that the government can't ban handguns but they can ban firearms that lack a shoulder stock?

I understand what you're saying, but isn't it those features that classify it as an "assault weapon*"? If they ban those features, then they've banned "assault weapons" as a class of firearms.

Of course, I've never accused the government of being reasonable or logical.


--------------------------------------------------------
*It pains me greatly to be forced to use the ridiculous term "assault weapon."

There is nothing to stop them from adding "assault weapons" to the NFA. It wouldn't be a ban and would almost certainly pass scotus review. This is already proposed for .50 bmg rifles, so they are thinking about it. Another method is to have them declared a destructive device just like the ATF did with the Street Sweeper. That didn't even need a new law, just political will.

I personally cannot say whats going through the antigun politicians minds and what they will or can focus on to attempt an AWB.
But after reading this post and responces I see a problem with defining an assault weapon as a rifle, if my memory serves me right by our own governments descriptions and laws some AW are handguns by law, some are SBR, some are SBS, some are AOW, some are full length rifles with 16 inch barrels, 20 inch barrels, 24 inch barrels, some are handguns with barrels from a few inches to almost the length of a rifles barrel. Some have bayonet lugs, some do not, some have detatchable magazines, some do not, some have high ammo capacities, some do not.
The only thing that an assault weapon has to have in order to make it an assault weapon is someone to call it that. By definition an assault weapon would be an M-16, a fully automatic AK-47, yes something that is covered under class 3 firearm definitions, select fire, a machinegun by law.
To someone who doesnt know any better if it looks like something a soldier or SWAT officer would carry on the job, its an assault weapon to them. Which brings us back to the purpose of the first ban, cosmetics, appearances, it looks evil to someone. Ive had people walk up to me at the range and ask "what kind of assault rifle is that" when referring to my mini-14, its a general purpose ranch rifle. All because of a folding synthetic stock.

[2] But, if an AWB is enacted and signed, it will the law unless and until a court tosses it out.

Click to expand...

I believe that someone would attempt to obtain an injunction forbidding enforcement until the matter is sorted out.

The Heller decision made it clear that you cannot ban a class or category of weapon.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the gun IS the weapon, not the flash hider, bayonet lug, etc. Where's their authority to ban non-guns? Can they ban forks?

My point is that once the gun itself is not subject to being banned under the 2nd, it is at best silly to discuss banning its accessories.