The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

vranasaurus · June 29, 2010, 11:30 AM

While Heller and McDonald set no precedent for or against AWBs the dicta does provide some ammunition to use against AWBs.

"Assault Weapons" are essentially semi-automatic rifles with certain features. They would certainly be a class of firearms.

They are definitely in common use as evidenced by sales.

And they make very effective self defense weapons in the home

I think in any case the government interest that will always be argued is the basis for gun control is gun crime.

The old federal AWB really furthered no government interest. So I don't see how it stands up to either intermediate or strict scrutiny.

California's AWB is much more onerous because it has effectively banned a class of firearms. Sure there are bullet buttons or monstergrips but that really changes the rifle in a substantial way. California can argue that their ban actually furthered there interest in controlling crime by getting AW's off the street. (I don't agree but that's their argument) Unlike the federal ban which was simply cosmetic and didn't really ban anything. IMO California's ban would have a chance under intermediate scrutiny but not strict scrutiny.

My argument against the AWB under intermediate scrutiny would be based upon it's lack of impact in the area of crime reduction. If you can show it furthers no important government interest you've got a shot.

Under strict scrutiny I don't think you can show the furtherance of a compelling government interest, that an AWB is narrowly tailored, and is the least restrictvie means.

With McDonald decided it shouldn't be too long before Califonria's AWB gets challenged under the second amendment.

Magazine capcaity limits I just don't see surviving a challenge. How does it further a government interest in stoping gun crime?

1 handgun a month rules will probably survive. This is especially true of intermediate scrutiny as slowing down gun trafficking is an important interest and it directly relates to that interest. Under strict scrutiny it largely depends depends on how narrowly the court considers it tailored and are than any other less restrictive means. I would certainly argue that changing the requirements for doing the multiple handgun purchase form from 2 or more handguns in a 5 day period (I believe that is the rule, someone will correct me I am sure) to 2 or more in a 30 day period would allow the government to control trafficking and be less restrictive than a total ban on multiple sales.

And last I think we need a new thread just discussing the constitutionality of registration because that is the big issue.

June 29, 2010, 11:30 AM	#53
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	While Heller and McDonald set no precedent for or against AWBs the dicta does provide some ammunition to use against AWBs. "Assault Weapons" are essentially semi-automatic rifles with certain features. They would certainly be a class of firearms. They are definitely in common use as evidenced by sales. And they make very effective self defense weapons in the home I think in any case the government interest that will always be argued is the basis for gun control is gun crime. The old federal AWB really furthered no government interest. So I don't see how it stands up to either intermediate or strict scrutiny. California's AWB is much more onerous because it has effectively banned a class of firearms. Sure there are bullet buttons or monstergrips but that really changes the rifle in a substantial way. California can argue that their ban actually furthered there interest in controlling crime by getting AW's off the street. (I don't agree but that's their argument) Unlike the federal ban which was simply cosmetic and didn't really ban anything. IMO California's ban would have a chance under intermediate scrutiny but not strict scrutiny. My argument against the AWB under intermediate scrutiny would be based upon it's lack of impact in the area of crime reduction. If you can show it furthers no important government interest you've got a shot. Under strict scrutiny I don't think you can show the furtherance of a compelling government interest, that an AWB is narrowly tailored, and is the least restrictvie means. With McDonald decided it shouldn't be too long before Califonria's AWB gets challenged under the second amendment. Magazine capcaity limits I just don't see surviving a challenge. How does it further a government interest in stoping gun crime? 1 handgun a month rules will probably survive. This is especially true of intermediate scrutiny as slowing down gun trafficking is an important interest and it directly relates to that interest. Under strict scrutiny it largely depends depends on how narrowly the court considers it tailored and are than any other less restrictive means. I would certainly argue that changing the requirements for doing the multiple handgun purchase form from 2 or more handguns in a 5 day period (I believe that is the rule, someone will correct me I am sure) to 2 or more in a 30 day period would allow the government to control trafficking and be less restrictive than a total ban on multiple sales. And last I think we need a new thread just discussing the constitutionality of registration because that is the big issue.