Are cosmetic restrictions an infringement?

[walker37]

Are comstic restrictions an infringement?

My question is:

Do you feel that a regulation that imposes cosmetic (the looks only, not the functioning) restrictions on firearms, such as those in the AWB, are an infringement on the 2nd Amendmant or just an inconvenience?

Please explain why you feel the way you do with your answer. I had this discussion on another board and I was shocked by some of the answers, but I will not go any further as not to influence your answers.

 

[Zak Smith]

Yes. Restrictions in the AWB are not cosmetic. Cosmetic implies there is no functional difference. Even something like "color" or "finish" could have functional consequences.

Do you feel that a regulation that imposes [...]
[...]
Please explain why you feel the way you do with your answer.

You should mean "think". As rational beings, we should back up our ideas with thoughts, not feelings.

-z

 

[jpIII]

I think I see where you are trying to go with this...

Here is what I THINK..

With the understanding that the 2nd Amendment was written for the main purpose as a final check against the government, I think that the AWB is an infringement.

The most apparent is the magazine restriction.... what if next they said "instead of 10 rounds,... you are only allowed to have 1 round per mag." from there it can be said that there is no difference between a 1rd per clip semi-auto and a single shot rifle, so lets ban all semi-autos...

it snowballs from there.

similar arguments can be made for the other restrictions...

basically anything that limits the citizen weaponry to less than their military counterparts is an infringement on the RKBA....
(including full-auto etc.. but that's a whole 'nother can of worms)

 

[Battler]

I think the author of the original post should really look up the term "infringement".

Are you asking something like "is an (arbitrarily defined as) small X still an X"?

 

[TallPine]

Do you feel that a regulation that imposes cosmetic (the looks only, not the functioning) restrictions on firearms, such as those in the AWB, are an infringement on the 2nd Amendmant or just an inconvenience?

Depends on what your definition of "are" is.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Yup, it's infringement.

While the effects of the AWB are "cosmetic", that is a consequence of its implementation, and a distraction from its basis.

The underlying rationale of the AWB is plain: that civilians have no business keeping or bearing military arms. This premise flies directly into the face, letter, spirit and intent of 2A.

It is, in other words, an attempt to institutionalize in the rule of law the sentiment that the only valid and lawful purpose for civilian posession of arms is the "sporting purpose".

The purpose of 2A is clearly spelled out: to maintain the effectiveness of the ability of the people to retain their freedom and security. While one can debate whether or not the People have an ice cubes chance in hell of being not only on parity with, but superior to* our current military, no one can seriously assert that attaining this end with double barrel duck guns and .22 plinkers is a more credible proposition.


*I forget which Federalist paper it was, but there is textual evidence that the intention was to be able to call forth a militia of the people numerically superior to any hypothetical standing army. The technology of the day implied relative parity between the arms of the people and the arms of the standing army. Today's situation is somewhat different. While the maximum theoretically callable militia would vastly outnumber military personnel, it would essentially be a contest of hunting rifles vs aircraft carriers.

 

[Oleg Volk]

On the other hand, civilians can improvise remote controlled explosives (as we see in Iraq and Israel) against anyone trying to actually hold territory. So the parity might not be there, but ability to wage an insurrection hasn't diminished.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Of course.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Where do you draw the line regarding what is "cosmetic"? Is a flash suppressor functional, or cosmetic? Is a bayonet stud functional, or cosmetic? Yes, a rifle without either will still go BANG when you pull the trigger, but the military isn't usually into cosmetic frills, so if military rifles have flash supressors and bayonet studs, I suspect those items are functional, not cosmetic.

A pistol grip is likewise not "cosmetic" but functional/ergonomic.

Getting to the root of the question, my desktop dictionary defines "infringe" as:

1. To violate or to transgress;
2. To encroach or to trespass

The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Based on this simple dictionary definition, that means the right to keep and bear arms shall not be violated, transgressed, encroached upon or trespassed upon. Telling me what weapons I am allowed to keep and bear is an encroachment on my right, and therefore is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Clear?

 

[flatrock]

Yes. They are an infringment of a particularly nefarious sort. The purpose of the AWB was a start at slowly nibbling away at gun rights in the US.

Handgun Control Inc. couldn't get any "effective" and sweeping gun control legislation passed, so they tried this approach. They targeted guns that looked scarry and made the NRA and anyone who opposed their bill sound like extremists and fringe groups.

The use the word assault weapons in the legislation to bring to mind full auto military weapons, even though many of the banned weapons have never been used by any military, and the features that were banned were merely cosmetic.

They picked a battle they thought they could win so they could make a precedent. Then they planned to keep extending the legislation to encompass more firearms. They planned to keep proposing "comprimise" legislation between total confiscation and the gun rights we have now. They just move the bar a little closer to banning firearms a little each time because little step don't seem as drastic as having your rights ripped out from under you in one step.

 

[walker37]

Thanks to all who have posted so far. Keep them coming. Please forgive the poor grammer in the original post. I was trying to quickly type the post in the few minutes I have after work while my wife was handing me our toddler as she was walking out to her job.

Here is the question as it was posted on the other board:

"Is limiting the cosmetics of a firearm, which does not affect it's effectiveness truely an infringement of the 2nd ammendment? Or is it simply an inconvenience like having to wear seat belts, can't walk around nude in public."

I hope this clears up my original post. Keep the responses coming!

 

[Wildalaska]

"Is limiting the cosmetics of a firearm, which does not affect it's effectiveness truely an infringement of the 2nd ammendment? Or is it simply an inconvenience like having to wear seat belts, can't walk around nude in public."

Whether or not it is an infringement qua infringement is immaterial, thre true question should read

""Is limiting the cosmetics of a firearm, which does NOT SUBSTANTIALLY affect it's USABILITY OR UTILITY a violation of the second amendment to the US constituion"

Ill be in the minority. Ill follow logic and reason and constituional law principles rather than emotion....

Answer:Stupid, yes...unconstituional, no...

WildbeenthroughthisbeforeAlaska

 

[Foreign Devil]

What if the government said you can't put illustrations, graphics or any kind of art on the cover of a book?

 

[Penforhire]

Cosmetics would not be an infringement IMO. But the AWB is not just cosmetic. That is where you fell off the tracks here and I think you rephrased it fine. But I'm sure there are people who would argue a cosmetic restriction would be infringement by definition.

But what is the point? If the restriction was just cosmetic then why would it be promoted? I don't agree with the AWB but I sort of understand where the false logic lies. If something were obviously cosmetic to an "anti" (e.g. no blue guns) then why would they propose it in the first place?

 

[USAFNoDAk]

*I forget which Federalist paper it was, but there is textual evidence that the intention was to be able to call forth a militia of the people numerically superior to any hypothetical standing army. The technology of the day implied relative parity between the arms of the people and the arms of the standing army. Today's situation is somewhat different. While the maximum theoretically callable militia would vastly outnumber military personnel, it would essentially be a contest of hunting rifles vs aircraft carriers.

But look at what is happening in Iraq. Yes there are some RPGs around, but you essentially have a bunch of infantry types (though these guys are terrorists and fighting for the opposite of freedom) who are able to attack and flee while escaping capture. Aircraft carriers, aircraft, tanks, howitzers and even smart weapons are not all that effective on this type of guerilla fighter.

We would be in a similar situation, as some of our military would most likely defect to join the freedom fighters, if the poop really hit the rotating air movement device. They would bring more sophisticated weaponry to the fight, as well as valuable intel on the military's plans to fight the militia.

Could we citizens defeat our military totally. Probably not. But we may make the pain so high, that whomever the power was that was oppressing the people, would see that it was too costly to continue to do so. We may also get help from other freedom minded countries, in much the same way that the Iraqi insurgents are most likely getting help from the more rigid minded Arab nations, like Iran and Syria.

Wouldn't it be ironic if at some point in the future, the British would actually aid our citizenry in fighting off the take over of the United States by an oppressive govt.?

That would be called History's full circle.

 

[Wildalaska]

What if the government said you can't put illustrations, graphics or any kind of art on the cover of a book?

Actually the better analogy is illustrations of a certain kind...

WildpornoAlaska

 

[spacemanspiff]

wait! i got it!
i know how we can PROVE that the AWB is unconstitutional!

dunno why i didnt think of it before...

all i have to do is say that those pre-ban features that i cant afford define me as an artist. and since it was the gov't who made them so far out of my economical reach, my first amendment rights have been infringed!

see, the artistic statement i wish to make with those evil features is, well, its a paradigm. get it?

 

[Foreign Devil]

But porno is legal. Regulated, but legal. And guns should be too regardless of how scary they look.

 

[walker37]

Thank you for all the replies. Some interesting points of view. This question was asked by a gun shop owner (he feels, oops, I mean thinks it is not an infringement) during another topic. I agree the AWB involves more than cosmetics, however the cosmetic aspect of the AWB was his focus for this question.

In my opinion, it is an infringement. There is no reasonable justification for the gov't telling me what firearm I may own based on how the weapon looks, or if it has a bayonet lug or folding stock. It is, in my opinion, just a slow form of outlawing guns, which I am sure most here would agree is an infringement.

I offered a different senario, in return, at which point he ended the discussion. You have the right in this country to get married (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). There are two men wanting to marry a white woman and are equal in every aspect...good jobs, good health, no criminal record etc. One is white and the other is black. The gov't tells the woman she cannot marry the black man. The reasoning based purely on his skin color (or cosmetics for firearms). Would you feel that was an infringement on her, or his rights?

 

[GigaBuist]

I don't like the law, but that's because if it's not stopped now it'll only get worse.

How about a curved trigger? That's cosmetic. What if the trigger had to be curved the OTHER way to be legal? What if you had to PUSH the trigger instead of PULL it? That'd make the civilian guns more different than the military guns.

Guards around the front site? Too military-ish. Can't have 'em.

Hey, the gun still shots and it still shoots accurately. It just works a little different than the military versions.

What about high powered scopes? Night vision? After all, those aren't even arms, certainly they can tell you that you can't put THAT onto the weapon. It's too military-ish to have an ACOG on your AR ya know.

 

[benEzra]

There are two men wanting to marry a white woman and are equal in every aspect...good jobs, good health, no criminal record etc. One is white and the other is black. The gov't tells the woman she cannot marry the black man. The reasoning based purely on his skin color (or cosmetics for firearms). Would you feel that was an infringement on her, or his rights?

It would absolutely be an infringement of both their rights, and an outrageous one at that. Sadly, this particular bigotry used to be codified into law in many states.

As far as the AWB being an infringement--definitely yes. Also remember that the part of the AWB that affects the most firearms is the 10-round capacity limit; the only firearms not limited to 10 rounds are .22 rimfires using tubular magazines and reproductions of certain Civil-War-era carbines. But the "evil features" prohibitions are plenty onerous. I have a Ruger mini-14 that I really want to put a folding stock on, for ease of storage and transport, but to do so would be a felony. I'd like a screw-on muzzle brake on my SAR-1, but that would also be a felony.

It would be like outlawing all books over 100 pages, or any book less than 100 pages that had two or more prohibited features (color pictures, spiral bound instead of thread/glue bound, paperback instead of hardback, raised type that protrudes conspicuously from the cover sleeve), or any book that had any of 19 banned titles. Would this be considered an infringement of the First Amendment? Yes.

 

[Night Guy]

Ah, I thought this topic sounded familiar. I contributed to the original post on said gun dealer's website. I'm sure some of you would like to read his thoughts yourself, so I have no problem directing you to the appropriate site. It's a shame how fellow gun owners are so quick to sell each other out.

www.popguns.com

 

[Delmar]

The last time SCOTUS actually decided a case involving 2A, they made the determination that only firearms with military utility fell under 2A. Therefore, we as citizens should be able to own true assault weapons-I mean select fire weapons as issued to the military forces.

We are a long way from going there I know. Chicken little would have a heart attack, but thats what WE as American citizens are entitled to if we so choose.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Discussing this topic (Tactics in the event of revolution.) ususally gets threads locked, but suffice to say that there's a HUGE tactical difference between a government fighting guerrillas somewhere else, and fighing them on it's own home ground. If all else fails, you might take out a fly with a shotgun, but not if it's sitting on your leg...

Truly "cosmetic" regulations on firearms infringe on the TENTH amendment. But as several have pointed out, the regulations in the AWB weren't "cosmetic", they just weren't crippling. The precident it establishes, though, was meant to be expanded. Only the '94 election nipped that in the bud. If the Democrats had retained control of Congress, you can be sure that the list of "evil features" would have grown to include things like, oh, semi-automatic actions, or failure to be a "smart" gun.

 

[walker37]

Night Guy,
How do you figure he was "sold out" as you put it. I even posted his original question here, as it was asked! I never mentioned his name or his store, so no one would know who he was. I do this in case there are those who would have some nasty opinions. By asking the question here rather than directing them to his billboard, he does not have to deal with them on a question he chose to stop discussing.

If you feel that he was "sold out" because there are those that would have a different opinion than this gun store owners, all i can say is welcome to America. We can all have different opinions here.