Assault Rifles and the 2nd Amendment

[DaveTN]

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 The Supreme Court of the United States will ultimately have to answer the question “Does an assault rifle ban violate the 2nd amendment?”  Whether or not we can continue to purchase and use our AR’s will depend on that ruling. The other question they will one day need to answer (that should be now) is “Can a U.S. Citizen in any state strap on a gun and walk down the street legally?”

First off, let’s not get lost in the definition of an Assault Rifle”. The AR-15 has clearly proven itself as an Assault Rifle and any legislation will include it as such.

The 2nd amendment had zero intent of making sure you could hunt or even protect your family and home.

So we are left with the argument that the 2nd amendment is in place to make sure “The People” have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. That’s a popular argument, but is it one that will help us keep our AR’s?

Another popular opinion is that it has nothing to do with individuals and protected state Militias from Federal takeover. That certainly doesn’t help us.

So… if you believe we have the 2nd amendment is in place to protect us from a tyrannical government; what about machine guns, hand grenades, tanks and even Nuclear weapons. A Tyrannical government would have all those things.

As recent as 2016 the SCOTUS has said “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” So how is the outlawing of citizens to have M16’s not unconstitutional?

Another possibility is that the SCOTUS refuses to hear these cases and allows States “Reasonable Restrictions”. But I don't think they can dodge this forever.

What do you think is going to happen?? Discuss.

 

[Grand Torino]

In my mind the gubberment "I'm from the government and am here to help" has no stinking business ruling on AR15's period. Will they do something or at least try? Probably....but what happens if a company makes something else that works better the following year and then the next year and so on. AR's are not the problem...never have been. How come kids and and other nutjobs weren't shooting up schools and such  in the 70's and 80's?

The argument by liberals isn't AR15's...it's guns in general. If their stinking toe jam smelling foot gets in the door then they will go to semi-automatic handguns and all the rest. Say goodbye to Glocks with large mags and others. We will end up like England or Australia.

This attack on an AR is only the first step...not the last. People will end up with an old Mosin ,M1 or Lee-Enfield. I don't have anything again those rifles but is that the only choice anyone wants?

This has to be fought and never surrendered.....this is serious...to me anyway.

[Grunt67]

It's not just guns in general, it's control period.  Guns are just a major step in accomplishing that.

[No_0ne]

Quote

The other question they will one day need to answer (that should be now) is “Can a U.S. Citizen in any state strap on a gun and walk down the street legally?”

The courts have been pretty consistent in prior rulings that states have the right to regulate the "bearing" of arms by their citizens, including whether or not to allow open/concealed carry.  To date, no case dealing with this issue has made it to the SCOTUS, lower court rulings have mostly been "no, each state has a right to decide how it's citizens bear arms" to this question ...

7 hours ago, DaveTN said:

First off, let’s not get lost in the definition of an Assault Rifle”. The AR-15 has clearly proven itself as an Assault Rifle and any legislation will include it as such.

While the original definition of "assault rifles" (circa WWII) was clearly a rifles firing reduced caliber ammunition in full auto configuration, the term has become more amorphous since, and pretty much depends on whomever is making the argument now ...

7 hours ago, DaveTN said:

So how is the outlawing of citizens to have M16’s not unconstitutional?

It's not, those rifles are in the hands of some citizens now, in the form of Class III weapons, requiring the federal tax stamps.  SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that Congress has the right to impose taxes, and that the NFA is a tax law, not a law which outlaws machine guns.  The Treasury dept. made the decision to stop issuing any new MG tax stamps in 1986, thus only those rifles made before that time can get a stamp, therefore paying the tax which makes them legal to possess.  These laws and decisions have already been adjudicated and found constitutional ...

 

If you look at the history of previous rulings by the SCOTUS on national gun laws, most of the decisions have been framed fairly narrowly, and in a consistent manner.  There are, of course, one or two "head-scratchers", but you find this with most issues which have been repeatedly looked at over time. One example is "US v. Miller", of 1939, which basically ruled sawed-off shotguns illegal, the argument was whether or not such a weapon was in common usage in the military, but since the defendant died before the case got to the SCOTUS the court let stand the decision of the lower courts which mandated a barrel length of 18" or more.  Most observers agree that this decision could probably be overturned in another case, but to date no case has come before the SCOTUS dealing with shotgun barrel lengths.

As for the assertion that the SCOTUS "has" to one day answer the questions the OP posed, maybe.  Based on the court's history regarding gun laws though, it's going to take a case which is very narrowly framed with very specific questions for the court to agree to hear it.  To date, there have been no cases which fit that definition ...

 

 

[Garufa]

1 hour ago, No_0ne said:

The Treasury dept. made the decision to stop issuing any new MG tax stamps in 1986, thus only those rifles made before that time can get a stamp, therefore paying the tax which makes them legal to possess.  These laws and decisions have already been adjudicated and found constitutional .

 

 

So, you are saying that the ATF regulated out machine guns rather than the 1986 act of Congress?  Please tell us more about that.

[No_0ne]

2 hours ago, Garufa said:

So, you are saying that the ATF regulated out machine guns rather than the 1986 act of Congress?  Please tell us more about that.

Not at all, just responding to the previous comment that machine guns are illegal.  The 1986 act definitely had an effect, as it put an end to new stamps being issued for MG's.

[TripleGGG]

It's not just guns in general, it's control period.  Guns are just a major step in accomplishing that.

Control is the desired end result. I have always said "create fear, you will gain control".

[JayC]

9 men and women in black robes far away do not decide what my natural rights are or are not.  My natural rights come from my Creator, or for those of you who don't believe, they come from my humanity.  They are mine, and I refuse to give them up, period.  

[DWARREN123]

Assault weapons are already banned, AR's are not assault weapons.

[Omega]

Assault rifles are exactly what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment.  They have since Infringed on real assault rifles, now they are after the semi auto sporting rifles too.  Somehow I don't think ANY of the politicians understand the oath they take.