[Shooter]

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale of semi-automatic "assault weapons" manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision.

What is your take on the FAWB in relation to exactly what the 2nd Amendment means. If they can ban assault rifles why could they not ban handguns, most rifles and shotguns. Allow us to only buy .22 air rifles or something ridiculous. I mean the 2nd Amendment allows us to bear arms, say they ban all but .22, could they claim that by allowing us only the .22 then they are not violating the Constitution?

 

[BLS33]

The banning of an entire type of firearm or even just one single one is unconstitutional in my mind. The fact of the matter is there is no connection between the rate of violent crime and the private ownership of guns, so any ban to make less violent crime won't really do jack.

http://gunfacts.info/

EDIT: Also in the second amendment it is important to note it is our right to form a well regulated militia as well as KEEP our arms. What kind of crappy militia would we be if we had .22 air rifles and they banned everything else. We need to have the firepower to protect a free state.

 

[Shooter]

I know it shouldn't be allowed but I wonder if legally the Gov't could do it. Ban all firearms but some really basic caliber long rifle and claim they haven't violated our 2nd Amendment since we can still own that one caliber.

 

[bkt]

I know it shouldn't be allowed but I wonder if legally the Gov't could do it.

The government does a number of things that are illegal. Why should this be any different?

Prohibition of alcohol, which started as a "moderation" movement, did not keep people from drinking. Instead, it turned millions of otherwise honest and sober citizens into overnight criminals. At least back then, Congress went to the trouble of following the law and managed to get the 18th amendment through. We will see no such effort when they try to prohibit/abolish firearms.

Progressive bans on various types of firearms and ammunition -- which will ultimately lead to attempts at mass confiscations -- will fail in exactly the same ways for exactly the same reasons.

 

[WILDCATT]

bans

one item every one misses is the 1934 law was not on banning guns it was a tax measure.after that is when it got tacky.congress dos'nt care whether it is constitutional or not only if it feels good.we vote them in we get what we pay for.gun owners could control the laws but are to fragmented to stick together.

 

[BrassMonkey]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Simple as that really. Any form of ban on any style of small arm is an infringment, and therefore unconstitutional.

 

[Scout]

I think the fate of some of this rests in what the SCOTUS does with the DC circuit's decision that the 2A did indeed refer to individuals. That was a pretty solidly written decision.

I have read a couple of things that are very troubling: Kennedy has proposed for a long time that ammo be 1. heavily taxed 2. banned (teenager definition:'the 2A says 'arms' nothing on 'ammo'!).

And recently, some liberal political operatives have conceded that the 2A does indeed refer to individuals and are beginning an effort to REPEAL the 2A.

I think they'll try the ammo route as they craft language for the repeal.

By the way - did anyone else think it 'convenient' that the Va Tech shooter did his little thing right after the DC decision?

 

[bkt]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Simple as that really. Any form of ban on any style of small arm is an infringment, and therefore unconstitutional.

Agreed.

Not to split rabbits or anything, but strictly speaking from a purist's point of view, there is no limitation or qualification of the arms people may bear just as there is no limitation or qualification of who may keep and bear them.

I bring this up only for this reason: many people may deem an AR-15 or 1911a or Sig P226 reasonable things to own yet many other people may say they are "impractical" and "unnecessary" and that they should be banned. Many more people would say that a tactical nuke is "impractical" and "unnecessary" and that they should be banned.

In the interest of fostering discussion, where should the line be drawn? Should we be take the Constitution literally: any arms may be kept and born? Or should there be a limit to what individuals may own? If so, what is the cutoff?

 

[BrassMonkey]

I think the fate of some of this rests in what the SCOTUS does with the DC circuit's decision that the 2A did indeed refer to individuals. That was a pretty solidly written decision.

I agree that the D.C case is a good starting point to take back our rights. My views on the 2A being an individual right come from its wording. If it were a collective right they would have said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" rather than "the right of the people".

I have read a couple of things that are very troubling: Kennedy has proposed for a long time that ammo be 1. heavily taxed 2. banned (teenager definition:'the 2A says 'arms' nothing on 'ammo'!).

And recently, some liberal political operatives have conceded that the 2A does indeed refer to individuals and are beginning an effort to REPEAL the 2A.

They would need a 2/3 majority vote of the states to repeal it. I do not think that is likely any time soon. A high ammo tax would be more realistic, but I suspect there would be too much resistance to pass it.

I bring this up only for this reason: many people may deem an AR-15 or 1911a or Sig P226 reasonable things to own yet many other people may say they are "impractical" and "unnecessary" and that they should be banned. Many more people would say that a tactical nuke is "impractical" and "unnecessary" and that they should be banned.

In the interest of fostering discussion, where should the line be drawn? Should we be take the Constitution literally: any arms may be kept and born? Or should there be a limit to what individuals may own? If so, what is the cutoff?

I have been at conflict with myself over that very issue before. While on one hand the idea of somebody stashing a nuke in their basement scares the hell out of me, on the other hand it is hard to draw the line. I have always viewed "arms" as implied by the Second Ammendment to mean small arms. I tend to go by the resposible use test. For example there can be a resposible use for a private party to own and facilitate a AR15, 1911a, or Sig P226. I don't see a resposible use for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in that same capacity.

 

[Scout]

It seems to me that such 'NBC' weapons are arguably offensive weapons meant to create as much chaos as possible.

The 1911s, AR-15s, etc can certainly be used as offensive weapons, but are also legitimate defensive weapons. My AR-15 is easier for me to shoot than a .12 gauge. My compact 45 can accompany me to the store or give me an extra measure of protection late at night should I have car trouble. My AR with a 20 rd magazine allows me protection on the back acres of my property if I am confronted with a pack of coyotes or feral dogs.

But that wasn't the intention of the 2A. It's intent is to give 'the people' the right of arms to defend legitimate government.

There is a great movie review for the 1938 classic 'Adventures of Robin Hood' with Errol Flynn. Find the review at
http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.moviedetail/movie_id/17

I think this is one of the best explanations of the right to bear arms ever offered. It also disspells the idea that Robin wanted to redistribute income. By the way, Prince John's and King Richard's father, Henry II, created the Assize of Arms in 1185 or so establishing the right of free men to bear arms and be armored in defense of both home and kingdom.

The movie is great fun, too.

 

[bkt]

I have been at conflict with myself over that very issue before. While on one hand the idea of somebody stashing a nuke in their basement scares the hell out of me, on the other hand it is hard to draw the line. I have always viewed "arms" as implied by the Second Ammendment to mean small arms. I tend to go by the resposible use test. For example there can be a resposible use for a private party to own and facilitate a AR15, 1911a, or Sig P226. I don't see a resposible use for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in that same capacity.

I'll argue that the Framer's intent was for the people to be armed in such a way they could overthrow an out-of-control, oppressive government as well as to come together as a trained militia to defend the country against a foreign force with similar weaponry. While people did own personal firearms (ball and shot), some also owned cannon and had resources for bombs. No weapons of the day -- regardless of how leading-edge or expensive -- were off-limits to individual citizens to own.

(The framers also never intended there to be a standing army. But since we have a very sophisticated standing military and the average guy on the street can't touch most of the arsenal at our military's disposal, we're pretty much screwed on that front. That's a topic for another thread, however.)

There's some dissonance here with regard to principle: on the one hand, I don't think there should be any limit because none was specified. On the other, WMD do seem a bit over the top for Joe Sixpack to be collecting and obviously I would not want these weapons out "in the wild".

 

[allmons]

There is a very simple rule that would work well....

Any weapon that an American Peace Officer can own and / or carry should be legal for citizens to own and carry.

That would preempt the ridiculous "nuclear weapons" and "fighter jets" straw man arguments that you get into with disingenuous anti-gunners.

The way the Constitution reads, no civil servant should have weapons that citizens cannot possess, in my ( and true scholars ) opinion.

 

[A5Mag12]

When the second amendment was written private citizens often had better weapons than the military of the time. Even up to the civil war many solders brought their own guns to battle. Now with the over crowded neighborhoods we have today you can't allow someone to keep explosives and the such but any and all small arms should be legal for anyone who is sane enough to own a gun.

 

[deerhuntguy]

Using the Military's definition of an Assault Weapon: "A SELECTIVE FIRE (Semi Auto or Full Auto) weapon that fires a reduced power cartridge ..."

1) None of the "Assault Weapons" on Mr. Clinton's list were a true Assault weapon.

2) All were a semi auto only civilian version of the military rifle.

3) Those that fired a full power cartridge like the .30-06 or 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester) would not be an assault weapon, even if they were selective fire.

4) Only three of the guns on the ban list had ever been used in a crime.

5) The guns were banned because they are black and look "mean."

On a related note, there was one benefit of the ban. The full auto/selective fire versions of the banned semi auto only guns were NOT banned, AND, the Federal Excise Tax for class 3 Arms was lowered from $500.00 to $25.00
So it became easier - and cheaper -to acquire the full auto/selective fire versions

The Supreme Court ruled back in the late 60's or early/mid 70's (soon after the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed) that excessive taxation on a product such as ammunition is unconstitutional.

As for the 2nd, as others have pointed out, makes no limits on what kinds of arms can be born by the people, but I think WMD's are a bit over the top for Joe 12 pack especially in this day and age.