"Common Use" Clause and Heller

[ManBearPig]

Here's the rub that I see it: They've been introducing the AWB 2 since the old one expired in 2004. They will continue to reintroduce it every year until the end of time.

We can either fight it every year and hope we always have at least one branch of government where the Republicans can shut it down or we could let it pass, take it directly to the Heller 5 and have a almost certain opinion that semi-automatic rifles are in fact in common use for lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and home defense.

Or is there a way to get another state's AWB to the court, while shutting the federal one down in the House, so that the Heller five can stomp on it?

 

[481]

Although, I do not wish to see the 94 AWB re-enacted, I am of the opinion that it'll run into a serious constitutional chalellenge in that it bans an entire class of firearms- Heller v DC rules such legislation as being unconstitutional.

 

[AlexanderA]

... we could let it pass, take it directly to the Heller 5 and have a almost certain opinion that semi-automatic rifles are in fact in common use for lawful purposes...

Gun owners don't really have the choice, or the luxury, of standing by while an AWB passes, and then hoping the Supreme Court overturns it. In the Heller case, the SC was almost exclusively focused on ordinary handguns. Scalia OK'ed "reasonable restrictions" such as banning machine guns, possession by felons, possession in federal buildings, etc. I'm not at all optimistic that a ban on AR-15's, etc., would fail to pass the SC's very vague standards from the Heller case.

 

[somerandomguy]

Seriously, why don't we just change the constitution? All it would need to say is something like:

"Citizens have the right to keep, bear, and purchase firearms and accessories regardless of type or function. In addition, the rights of citizens to form or join well regulated militias shall not be infringed".

I mean really, then washington wouldn't have a scapegoat and they could go back to dealing with important things like idk, the deficit?

 

[AlexanderA]

Changing the constitution is easier said than done. Which is a good thing. If the 2nd Amendment came up for a vote today, we'd probably lose.

 

[Direwolf]

Changing the constitution is easier said than done. Which is a good thing. If the 2nd Amendment came up for a vote today, we'd probably lose.

I don't think we'd lose. I believe it's 2/3 of the states would have to ratify it and that wouldn't happen.

 

[bldsmith]

Not only 2/3 of the states but 2/3 of the voters in each state. This is why all firearms owners need to stand shoulder to shoulder. When one is attacked we all are.

 

[gunnutery]

Although, I do not wish to see the 94 AWB re-enacted, I am of the opinion that it'll run into a serious constitutional chalellenge in that it bans an entire class of firearms- Heller v DC rules such legislation an unconstitutional.

Very true. Thanks for pointing that out. The bad part is that if the President gets to choose another member to the SCOTUS, they may not even decide to hear another case. We've won two very big cases for 2A by a very thin margin (which I still find incomprehensable).

 

[M-Cameron]

We can either fight it every year and hope we always have at least one branch of government where the Republicans can shut it down or we could let it pass, take it directly to the Heller 5 and have a almost certain opinion that semi-automatic rifles are in fact in common use for lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and home defense.

that's kind of like saying rather than trying to avoid it, someone should purposely get the black plague....and hope their body develops an immunity so they never get it again.


while yes, there is a remote chance your body will develop an immunity to it, it still doesn't change the fact you have to with the black plague......and if you get it wrong, and don't develop an immunity, you are screwed.

 

[481]

Very true. Thanks for pointing that out. The bad part is that if the President gets to choose another member to the SCOTUS, they may not even decide to hear another case. We've won two very big cases for 2A by a very thin margin (which I still find incomprehensable).

Yep, the "Left" side of the court is apparently very lacking in reading comprehension.

 

[Vonderek]

I think it was "U.S. vs Miller" that ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects only arms of the type in common use by the military when it ruled against Miller who had been convicted of possession of an illegal sawed-off shotgun. Since sawed-off shotguns were not in use by the military, the court upheld the conviction. I don't know why this decision doesn't carry more constitutional weight in modern times in the debate of what types of arms can be banned. Scholars and historians please weigh-in.

Not meant to be a hijack thread but thought this decision might be more important than Heller in the gun ban debate.

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

US v Miller? Probably because it needs to be brought up in a challlenge this time around ... the "in common use" statement. Not that I'm looking forward to a fight ... but if you slapped some of those on the SC with that wet rag ... I bet you'ld get some attention. Pretty hard to ignore the central point of an anti-gun SC decision!

 

[devildog4329]

In response to the Supreme Court being vague, The Supreme Court only rules on the issue that is brought before them. In their findings they may make suggestions to how they would rule on connected issues. The reason they do not make decisions on associated concepts is because that is not the case they are hearing. I prefer the way that this works due to the fact that if the Supreme Court ruled on every issue that could possibly be connected to one case would be disastrous.

 

[jason41987]

so... US v Miller rules that the second amendment protects the individuals right to own military-style firearms... or for future reference, any firearm similar to the type used by the US military... which in this case is autoloading rifles with 30 round magazines, pistol grips, stocks, and muzzle breaks

so by this definition, wouldnt "select-fire" also qualify as being protected under the constitution as being similar to what the US military uses?... i mean, that IS what the second amendment was intended for, it was intended for us to be equipped like our military.... so by that definition, someone could challenge the laws that restrict selective fire too

 

[k_dawg]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

SCOTUS could have put a stop to all this nonsense once and for all, yet refused to do so.

Just like it took almost 200 years from our founding to put a stop to the racist bigotry, I fear it'll require another 200 years from Heller vs US.