Federal Court Upholds Assault Weapons Ban.

[mehavey]

If I read the gist of the last series of posts here, a federal ban on assault weapons
and/or their magazines/ammunition could be invoked by "stroke of the pen", and the
courts now have precedent to leave it in place.

Notwithstanding the reaction/backing off of the recent attempt at banning "armor piercing"
5.56 ammunition, I seriously doubt Congress could/would override such an action with
a veto-proof majority.

Thoughtful opinion welcome.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by mehavey

If I read the gist of the last series of posts here, a federal ban on assault weapons
and/or their magazines/ammunition could be invoked by "stroke of the pen", and the
courts now have precedent to leave it in place.

I'm not sure what you mean by "stroke of the pen", but enacting a new federal AWB would clearly require new legislation - it could not be done by executive order.

[LancelotLink]

I don't post here that often but this thread deserves a de-lurk.

The biggest threat to the 2A is becoming assault weapons bans.

Neither Congress or State Legislators can opt out of the Constitution. They can't carve out an exception to free speech, the right to counsel, the right against self incrimination, or the right to vote. The Constitution trumps laws that purport to do that.

Except for assault weapons.

Assault weapons are arbitrary creatures of statute, and are defined as the legislative branch sees fit. If assault weapons, as defined by the legislative branch, fall outside the constitution, the implications are enormous and go far beyond the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2A may wind up being the first casualty of this line of thinking and rulings, but it certainly won't be the last.

[mehavey]

...but enacting a new federal AWB would clearly require new legislation....

I cannot argue against the fact that because Congress actually let the AWB expire,
legal beagles could make the case that active legislation is req'd to re-impose it.

On the other hand, I remain concerned that the current leadership could/would issue
such an order -- and though it likely would be immediately subject to lawsuit -- the
court case(s) would drag on for years as the damage cont'd to sink in.....

[JERRYS.]

this case would have never been subject to bias in a federal court if the voters of the great state of Illinois cleaned their own house first. elections have consequences.

[44 AMP]

Congress actually let the AWB expire,

Point of order here, ..Congress did not LET the AWB expire. They were REQUIRED to allow its expiration, due to the sunset clause written into it. (the one good thing about the entire law)

A lot of people worked very hard to pass new bills to extend the AWB and to make it permanent. THIS time, they were not in the majority. Other people worked hard to ensure the AWB sunset, on schedule, as written. It did.

And after it did, the world did not end.

They can't carve out an exception to free speech,

There are people working to do that as we speak. In fact, some "news" outlet's first question, after reporting on the Texas shooting at the "free speech event", was NOT the familiar "ban assault weapons/ban guns" mantra, but was instead "should we limit free speech?"

Since Heller and MacDonald, the antis have shifted, slightly. These rulings have given a modern reaffirmation to the 2nd Amendment, and they can't do much about that. So the new "holy writ" for their cause is that if you or I have some kind of legal access to some kind of firearm at all, then our rights are not violated.

The same logic would dictate that as long as you were able to worship some God, some where, your freedom of religion was not violate.

OF course, they say "that's not the same thing!" but really bottom line, its about your right to make your own choices, and I see that as the same thing.

[mehavey]

Since Heller and MacDonald, the antis have shifted, slightly. These rulings
have given a modern reaffirmation to the 2nd Amendment, and they can't
do much about that. So the new "holy writ" for their cause is that if you or
I have some kind of legal access to some kind of firearm at all, then our
rights are not violated.

I believe you have just spelled out how a de facto AWB [named anything de jure but
actually that, of course] could/would be put in place. Did I presume a false logic here?

(Gawd I hope your basic legal premise of legislation-req'd is correct. But I fear....)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

AWB and the like are common in antigun states. They will be supported by the Zumbo wing of the gun world. The modern sporting rifle plays into their hands. As does the folks here who thing higher capacity guns and extra mags are delusional carry choices.

I don't think SCOTUS will go near state restrictions as I said before.

That would be like saying you have free speech so long as you can talk about certain topics.

Sad to say, I had lunch with a 'gun guy' who was in favor of government control of events such as the Garland Cartoon event because it was the same as shouting fire in a crowded theater. That's no different in kind from a 7 round NY SAFE act restriction.

[mehavey]

...lunch with a 'gun guy' who was in favor of government control
of events such as the Garland Cartoon event** because it was the
same as shouting fire...

But if you ask such "just reasonable rules" people if we should ban public
flag-stomping and urine soaked crucifixes in "art" exhibits, they withdraw
in absolutely breathless horror of any such limitations on 'free expression'.

Sauce for the goose is the best argument these folks.
Ban one...? Ban ALL.




**
We could have written the blame-the-victim script on this one ahead of time.

.

[44 AMP]

shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Did you happen to remind him that there is no penalty for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there IS a fire?

Or maybe ask him why he is in favor of giving terrorism the victory they want?

If you pay the Danegeld, you are never rid of the Dane.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I explained all the issues. Of course, he went away thinking he was still correct.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by LancelotLink

The 2A may wind up being the first casualty of this line of thinking and rulings, but it certainly won't be the last.

Next up: "Assault newspapers."

[mehavey]

Next up: "Assault newspapers."

Naaaaaggghh.
Next up is an executive action on Assault Cartoons.

No wait.
Did I say "next"?

Naaaagghh.
Should've said "already"
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/06/ma...omeplace-else/

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

this case would have never been subject to bias in a federal court if the voters of the great state of Illinois cleaned their own house first. elections have consequences.

Don't blame me, I vote for the other person... in the rare instance there's another person to vote for.

[bandaid1]

The thing that still makes me scratch my head is the Wilson v. Cook County case. That case was filed in 2010, I believe, and is now on hold(until October 2015) due to this ruling. Now, Highland Parks law is a clone of Cook Counties law. Not being a Lawyer, I don't get how the Highland Parks 2013 law gets priority over a case that has been going on for over 3 years and had already been herd by Illinois Supreme Court.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Friedman is in Federal court, while Wilson is in state court. Illinois courts move s-l-o-w.

[leadcounsel]

The biggest threat to the 2A is becoming assault weapons bans.

I disagree. I'm extremely pro gun, and recognize this is ONE of many threats.

But most of Congress and most states aren't going to be able to enact significant AWB in 40 states or more. So, there is an remedy... don't live in the 10 anti-gun states. The AWB failed, and most leaders in most states who are intellectually honest realize this. Absent something odd, the AWB isn't going to happen again in 40 of the states in my lifetime. It is alive and well in about 10 states in some form.

The BIGGEST threats are the feel-good anti-gun laws such as the bans on guns due to Domestic Violence misdemeanor convictions (Lautenberg). Restraining orders will do the same thing. These are flim-flam end-around gun bans that are sold as protecting victims. But it's just easy gun bans. If you understand how these work, along with the simple, free and fast process, they are used with growing frequency and in growing categories by disgruntled, vindictive, upset, or used tactically by ex-spouses, ex lovers, roommates, family members, and even acquaintances. Someone slapped with one of these can plan to spend $10,000 to fight to keep his 2A rights, and stands a chance of losing! It's an evil misuse of the law, but it happens hundreds of times every day to people who are not domestic abusers - thus violating the spirit and intention of the law. That's my biggest concern - some wacko who fires one of these missiles.

The BIGGEST threats are also the ballot initiatives requiring "common sense gun control" like registration, going through dealers and eliminating face-to-face transactions, and AWB style bans and limiting other rights. WA and CO both passed various anti-gun measures in the last couple years.

[steve4102]

The BIGGEST threats are the feel-good anti-gun laws such as the bans on guns due to Domestic Violence misdemeanor convictions (Lautenberg). Restraining orders will do the same thing. These are flim-flam end-around gun bans that are sold as protecting victims. But it's just easy gun bans. If you understand how these work, along with the simple, free and fast process, they are used with growing frequency and in growing categories by disgruntled, vindictive, upset, or used tactically by ex-spouses, ex lovers, roommates, family members, and even acquaintances. Someone slapped with one of these can plan to spend $10,000 to fight to keep his 2A rights, and stands a chance of losing! It's an evil misuse of the law, but it happens hundreds of times every day to people who are not domestic abusers - thus violating the spirit and intention of the law. That's my biggest concern - some wacko who fires one of these missiles.

The BIGGEST threats are also the ballot initiatives requiring "common sense gun control" like registration, going through dealers and eliminating face-to-face transactions, and AWB style bans and limiting other rights. WA and CO both passed various anti-gun measures in the last couple years.

Don't forget the States Legalizing Marijuana while the Federal Government does not. Millions of Americans are becoming instant felons every time another State "legalizes" Marijuana.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by leadcounsel

...most of Congress and most states aren't going to be able to enact significant AWB in 40 states or more. So, there is an remedy... don't live in the 10 anti-gun states. The AWB failed, and most leaders in most states who are intellectually honest realize this.

+1, and I'd like to say "Thanks!" for the extremely compelling and spot-on response.

Many pro-gun arguments against AWB's are actually pretty weak, as Glenn pointed out here, and as I've previously written in other threads.

The key point is that most of the major anti-gun arguments in favor of an AWB fail for the same basic underlying reason as most of the pro-gun arguments against them: AWB's as currently and previously enacted don't really disarm anybody,* at least not anyone who's smart enough to understand the fine points of the law, and it's easy to be smart enough in the days of instant information via the Interwebz.

Does an AWB suck? Sure. But widespread de facto criminalization of mere gun ownership sucks a LOT more, and IMHO it's important to distinguish between the two concepts.

*Edit to add footnote: I believe that this is the ultimate reason why AWB's have been shown to have a more-or-less inconclusive effect on crime; if you set aside exceedingly rare events like mass shootings, most gun crimes consist of (a) a crook WITH a gun victimizing someone with NO gun - no shots fired- and/or (b) a crook in possession of a gun in violation of existing law. In these cases, taking the crook's 17rd mag away does nothing to address the cause or nature of the crime.

[bandaid1]

"an AWB doesn't really disarm anybody"

I disagree. First, People would have to agree on what is to be banned. In answering that first question, "what is a Assault Weapon"? Anyone that knows anything about firearms understands that it is a question without a rational answer. In the words of Ursula K. Le Guin ; "There are no right answers to wrong questions.". Thus, the issue becomes one of banning a item without a discernable definition, so anything could fall into that meaning. This is and was the intent IMO of the AWB program.

A true AWB would/could absolutely disarm the entire population. Since any firearm could be categorized as such since there is no such classification. To think otherwise is a folly IMO. It amounts to a ban on "scary guns", well what the hell is a scary gun?

[mehavey]

People would have to agree on what is to be banned.
In answering that first question, "what is a Assault Weapon"?

That's easy: "It's the thing that goes up."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The old AWB failed in the eyes of DOJ sponsored research because:

1. The existing stock of grandfathered weapons was adequate to meet demand for those guns.

2. New guns with equal efficacy were available as the ban principles only affected cosmetics.

Thus, the gun world argued that AWB's in general were stupid. The antigun world wanted total bans on semi-auto guns that had the ability to take high capacity magazines and total bans on such magazines. That might by attrition take down the stocks of existing guns over time (foolish conjecture).

Plus, confiscatory policies would demand turn-ins of existing guns. That would reduce the number available somewhat as law abiding folks would turn them in. Yes, we know that many would hide them but that renders them useless for common applications. Can't go to a match or hunt with them. Use them for SD and get all kinds of legal trouble. If you reduce the law abiding guns, you reduce their leakage to criminals.

Thus, there would be a move for just firearms clearly seen as just sporting - bolt action rifles and O/U shotguns. Total handgun bans (except for some esoteric sports) would follow.

CarguyChris is correct in that the bans that existed or exist now are ineffective.There are those weird pump action or NY compliable AR monstrosities. Probably quite a usable gun.

The fear is a total and confiscatory mandated law. I don't see that happening in the forseeable future on a federal level. States - yes. Depends on the gun vs. antigun populations of those states.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by steve4102

Don't forget the States Legalizing Marijuana while the Federal Government does not. Millions of Americans are becoming instant felons every time another State "legalizes" Marijuana.

How so?

I don't use marijuana (or anything else) and never have. If my state were to legalize marijuana tomorrow, that would not make me an instant felon. Conversely, today marijuana is not legal in my state. Those who currently use marijuana are already breaking the law, and seeing the state legalize MJ tomorrow would not change that.

The only people who might "become felons" when states legalize marijuana are those who don't use MJ now but who would use it if it were legal. I may be completely off base, but I just don't see millions of people falling into that category.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by bandaid1

"an AWB doesn't really disarm anybody"

I disagree.

Hasty and sloppy wording. Post corrected to better reflect my intent.

I'm cognizant of the "slippery slope" pro-gun argument against AWB's. My point is that, under most AWB-type regulations that have been enacted, law-abiding would-be gun owners can still obtain A GUN, even if it's not the gun they really want. In fact, the response to previous AWB-type schemes has typically been the purchase of MANY not-quite-the-right-guns by enthusiasts symbolically thumbing their noses at the law.

Furthermore, an AWB inherently smacks of confiscation, and the political fallout from the original federal AWB has prompted all but the most zealous far-left politicians to repeat the mantra of "No Confiscation" so many times that it's going to be really hard for them to back-pedal on this.

The underlying larger point is that laws aimed at whittling down the pool of lawful gun OWNERS are a more real and nefarious threat. Americans may not like "bans," but they like "wife beaters" and "terrorists" even less. (Speaking of which, I'm expecting the fallout from the recent Garland attack to gel into another attempt at banning so-called "terror suspects" from gun ownership. Membership at the wrong mosque should NOT be a NICS disqualifier for an otherwise law-abiding American.)

[bandaid1]

"an AWB doesn't really disarm anybody"

I disagree. First, People would have to agree on what is to be banned. In answering that first question, "what is a Assault Weapon"? Anyone that knows anything about firearms understands that it is a question without a rational answer. In the words of Ursula K. Le Guin ; "There are no right answers to wrong questions.". Thus, the issue becomes one of banning a item without a discernable definition, so anything could fall into that meaning. This is and was the intent IMO of the AWB program.

A true AWB would/could absolutely disarm the entire population. Since any firearm could be categorized as such since there is no such classification. To think otherwise is a folly IMO. It amounts to a ban on "scary guns", well what the hell is a scary gun?