Would an AWB be good?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
Would a Federal AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) be good for the 2nd Amendment?


Because it could be the perfect vehicle to send to the Supreme Court for a victory for the 2nd Amendment?


Also, would it ever get to the SCOTUS?


.

 

[General Geoff]

Largely depends on whether the law would be deemed unconstitutional. Strictly speaking, according to the Heller ruling, yes such a ban would be considered unconstitutional so long as the new AWB affected guns that are "in common use." Is a semi automatic rifle in common use by citizens of the United States? I'd say yes. But I don't have any numbers with which to back up this claim.


As for whether it would get to the Supreme Court, that depends on whether any lower court struck it down. I'm not sure the opposition wants a repeat of their humiliating defeat via Heller. But then again, if they did remain stalwart and appeal up to the Supreme Court, it's anyone's guess if we could maintain our one-judge advantage.

 

[JWarren]

How long was it on the books before the DC handgun ban was challenged?

I don't have that kind of time.


Besides, the Clinton AWB got put on the books in 1994 and was never deemed unconstitutional by any SC challenge.

I am afraid that if an AWB gets on the books, it not be challenged and/or it will take a LONG time to overturn.

In short, it is never a good thing to have our freedom taken away so that we can GET it BACK. The only answer is to draw the line. Not one more step backwards. Ever.


-- John

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

I say no. Never. We were extremely lucky that the first one sunset without any kind of renewal... Now the dems are getting even more power not just with the presidency, but with congressional seats...

 

[ants]

Don't let Heller make you think that all Supreme Court challenges will go our way

Better for 30 to 60 million American gun owners to band together and direct Congress to avoid a nationwide assault weapons ban, rather than welcome an assault weapons ban and challenge it in the Supreme Court.

The Heller vote was only 5 to 4. That's skin-of-the-teeth territory. If a Democratic president puts just one more anti-gun judge on the bench, a Supreme Court challenge would be devastating for gun rights.

 

[jakemccoy]

It's a long shot to expect the SCOTUS to overturn such a law. SCOTUS would be contradicting the U.S. Congress and the President of the U.S.A., not just DC legislators from decades ago. Also, it would take longer and be even more difficult to conjure up the perfect storm of facts.

A lot of gun owners would like to see it happen, but nobody would actually want to get involved. For whoever is actually in the middle of that fight, the fight would be taxing and would take years off their life.

I wonder how many federal laws (e.g., United States Code) the SCOTUS has found to be unconstitutional. I can’t think of any off the top of my head without researching. That’s not saying much, but one would think I could think of at least one.

 

[MGshaggy]

Besides, the Clinton AWB got put on the books in 1994 and was never deemed unconstitutional by any SC challenge.

True, but Penn arms and Navegar/Intratec (maker of the Tec-9 and Tec-22) challenged the law in federal court in D.C. on various grounds and lost. The SCOTUS issued a short written opinion in which it denied cert.

 

[I LIKE IT!]

No. HELL NO!

It's funny how Nobama uses local cities and STATE governing as his basis of reasonable gun laws while claiming he won't take your gun then propouses a FEDERAL ban under the guise of the AWB(semi-auto) as reasonable.

One way or another the fascists in government must be stopped from destroying the fabric of this great nation.

 

[Ethereal]

If the supreme court's decision on the Heller case was any indication, it wouldn't be shot down after the fact going off their statement that an all out ban would be unconstitutional, but certain "regulation" is perfectly fine. That sums up to me that while an across the board ban would be unlikely the legislation to ban certain types of firearms is perfectly reasonable to most judges and governing authorities. Also the vote on the Heller case was 5-4 in favor of striking down the ban; hardly a win really for the 2A in my eyes. Best advice is not to push your luck with thinking that it'll any AWB would be temporary in the eyes of SCOTUS and at this point an inch could turn into the neverending highway of gun control.

 

[Zoogster]

The SCOTUS barely ruled in our favor 5-4.

A new AWB if challenged and appealed would not make it before the Supreme Court for many years. By that time the new president will have appointed some new justices.
The Supreme Court can also choose whether it ever even wants to hear a case. So they can choose to never hear it even if it does get appealed all the way to them.

So if we barely got a 5-4 ruling that we have the individual right to keep and bear arms, and some of those 5 are likely to be replaced potentialy by Obama (who will favor a leftist judge, and has himself supported every single gun control measure ever proposed, which is public record.)

So you can do the math. It would not be good.

 

[meef]

Would a raging case of perpetual hemorrhoids be good?

I consider both questions to have equal merit.

 

[slide]

There is nothing in Heller which would make a new AWB ruled Unconstitutional even if ruled on by the Heller court. Also if the Court ruled against a new AWB, it'd make a foundation for likewise ruling the NFA Unconstitutional - something none of us will live long enough to see (sadly).

I'm sure the nature of the AWB being an extension of the NFA isn't lost on the SCOTUS so this is one we win in Congress or lose forever.

 

[chris in va]

Because it could be the perfect vehicle to send to the Supreme Court for a victory for the 2nd Amendment?

From what I understand, a couple SCOTUS justices are about to retire and may be replaced with less 2A friendly judges.

 

[I LIKE IT!]

All we need to do is convince the commies in government that if they try to pull some B.S. like the AWB agian that we the people will be forced to hit the reset button.

The threat of splitting from the union and loss of taxpayers is proabley the only thing that will sway them away from another AWB.

I just hope we as Americans are still up to paying the price for freedom.

 

[MikePGS]

Would it be good if they temporarily suspended your ability to breath, presuming that you know in the future you might get it back if a majority of 9 famously fickle individuals decided to "give" it back to you?

 

[jakemccoy]

I really wish we could work into our culture a new name besides "Assault Weapon". How often are these guns used for assault by law-abiding gun owners? How about we use "Efficient Firearms" or something else? Or perhaps lets refer to ALL guns and knives as assault weapons so that the name becomes substantially meaningless. If we keep "Assault Weapon" in any law, there's no way the SCOTUS will ever find such a law to be unconstitutional simply because of the damn name alone!

 

[slide]

WE didn't name firearms we use often for target only (such as the Pardini target pistol) assult weapons. The promoters of gun bans such as Biden did. The media went along.

Here we use the term to mean weapons which are in the first wave of the new bans if the Democrats gain power in both branches of government.

 

[CRITGIT]

Keep bashin' that one particular party...That'll pay big dividends over the next eight!
Better educate and recruit rather than bash and alienate....and fast!

CRITGIT

 

[buzz_knox]

Keep bashin' that one particular party...That'll pay big dividends over the next eight!

You can educate and speak the truth at the same time. And it's not bashing to refer to gun control and Democrats in the same sentence. Of the two dominant parties, only one has gun bans as a plank of its national platform. Glossing that over does nothing but constitute a lie by omission that will mislead some into thinking supporting that party isn't the same as supporting that plank.

 

[mljdeckard]

Which increment in incrementalism is 'acceptable'?

Heller was good reasoning, good judges, good timing, and a LOT of good luck. Just remember how long it took to get to the SCOTUS, and how long it had been since the LAST major 2A case.

I do not share in the current reasoning that Obama winning means everything falls apart in four years. HE has to be careful with HIS timing too. They could ramrod through, say, a new assault weapons ban, watch all the challenges go through, and the year it's being considered in the lower courts, Obama loses reelection, two supreme court justices are replaced by conservatives, and the new court decided that 'assault' weapons are indeed in common use. It would be just as hard for them to stage a favorable ruling as it was for us to get Heller.

No one here is suggesting we get complacent. But this election is going to be FRIGHTENINGLY close, no matter who wins it. They will IMMEDIATELY have to start proving themselves. Congress has a NINE PERCENT approval rating. New gun laws is NOT what we want to see to start liking them again, and they know this. It's not just Heller. It's the protection from third party lawsuits, that 40 of 50 states are 'shall issue', and that public opinion is on our side. If you win by fooling 'enough of the people at the right time', it is disingenuous to immediately start doing all the things you said you wouldn't do in your campaign, lest they not get fooled again for the SECOND term. THEY KNOW, that the single biggest factor in the upheaval of 1994 was the Clinton AWB. When they get the hat trick and control everything, they don't want to throw it away AGAIN on such a hot-button issue.

I personally think the odds of Obama getting a second term AND keeping control of Congress to be pretty much impossible. I think he's promised so many things to so many parties with such an empty bank account, he will gloriously implode. He's Jimmy Carter, but remember, WE SURVIVED Jimmy Carter.

 

[Rshooter]

Educate? How can you educate people who spread propaganda like "Ask the parents of your children's friends if they have a gun in the house. If so it is not safe for them to to play there." Liberals spread misinformation and fear, Obama is the second most liberal lawmaker in the Senate according to his voting record. Do the math, mobilize now or lose your rights.

 

[JWarren]

I personally think the odds of Obama getting a second term AND keeping control of Congress to be pretty much impossible.

I think that an Obama presidency gives credibility to the Mayan Doomsday Prophecy.

They predicted that December 21, 2012 is the big day. That's about a month after we all vote for or against "The Boss" again.






-- John

 

[RP88]

it'll probably take ten years to get to the supreme court, where it could lose badly for all we know.

I'm going to go with a 'no'. A SCOTUS win will have better long-term security, but the most important fight will be year-to-year with the anti-gun sponsors. If it can be made into law, then it can be justified as remaining so. There is no reason to deprive ourselves for ten years (or more) for something that we may never be able to get back.

And as for the next 4-8 years, I'm sick and tired of talking about it. I'll have my guns, and I'll be writing my congress people. Obama can't draft bills, but his congress friendlies can.

 

[wally]

I drive a Hybrid, would $10/gal gas be good?

I don't think so!

--wally.

 

[jakemccoy]

WE didn't name firearms we use often for target only (such as the Pardini target pistol) assult weapons. The promoters of gun bans such as Biden did. The media went along.

Here we use the term to mean weapons which are in the first wave of the new bans if the Democrats gain power in both branches of government.

Whatever the explanation, we should work on changing the terminology if possible. Words are EVERYTHING when it comes to legality. I know it's wishful thinking, but just imagine if the term "Assault Weapon" were "Efficient Firearm" or something like that. Our fight would be easier. When it comes time to draw a line in the sand for guns, it all comes down to primitive perception, no matter how cleverly we frame the arguments.