AW Ban, Constitutional? WHat about last time

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steel185

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
107
Location
Ankeny, IA
I've been reading trying to keep up with everything going on this time around. I don't think any of the proposed legislation Fed or State will change anything for stopping crime or increasing safety. I was wondering if a weapons ban is in fact un-constitutional, why wasn't it challenged last time? Maybe it was but I can't find anything about it. Just wondering on the history and the grounds it would/or did cover. I was wondering if we are fooling ourselves thinking it won't go through because it is unconstitutional, but it went through last time. What has changed?

I'm not ranting, I'd really like an answer if anyone has one.
Thanks
 
I was wondering if we are fooling ourselves thinking it won't go through because it is unconstitutional, but it went through last time. What has changed?
Click to expand...
It won't go through, not because it is unConstitutional, but because it is wildy unpopular among a very motivated group of activists and voters, and a substantial block of House members who listen to them.

The previous AWB was never ruled unConstitutional, but was seen as a "reasonable regulation" at the time. Of course, having it sunset in 10 years sort of precluded it from being hit with a serious Constitutional challenge because of how long such things take to work through the courts.
 
IIRC, Sick Willie's Pork Plan and Gun Ban never went to SCOTUS. This time? I expect something will be going up the Federal court ladder.

Except we have the Heller decision to use in our favor. The Left really hasn't figured this out yet.
 
Sam1911 said:
Of course, having it sunset in 10 years sort of precluded it from being hit with a serious Constitutional challenge because of how long such things take to work through the courts.
Click to expand...

↑↑↑↑
This.
I think everyone knew that if they waited 10 years it could go away (and it did) so no one wanted to make the effort to get it all the way up to SCOTUS.
Plus there would have been the risk of an adverse decision -- like what Roberts did via Obamacare.
 
We have something now we didn't have in 1994. Heller. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not tied any militia service, and it is now incorporated against the states. It also specifically calls out that firearms in "common use" are protected. What, pray tell, are more common that AR-15 rifles? Also Miller says that arms that are useful to the militia are protected. The president himself is calling these rifles "military syle" weapons, affirming the fact that they are indeed a protected class of arms.
 
kludge said:
We have something now we didn't have in 1994. Heller. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not tied any militia service, and it is now incorporated against the states. It also specifically calls out that firearms in "common use" are protected. What, pray tell, are more common that AR-15 rifles? Also Miller says that arms that are useful to the militia are protected. The president himself is calling these rifles "military syle" weapons, affirming the fact that they are indeed a protected class of arms.
Click to expand...
I fear the same type of disingenuous reasoning most people use when trying to ban things. You aren't being prevented from owning X, we are simply not offering them for sale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top