Heller and AWB impact?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RNB65

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
4,056
Location
Richmond, VA
Someone raised an interesting point in another thread which I'd like to explore a bit more. Assuming that SCOTUS rules favorably in Heller and declares that the 2A protects an individual RKBA, what impact might the ruling have on efforts to pass a new assault weapons ban? Would Congressional moderates be less likely to support a new AWB so soon after a major SCOTUS ruling on the 2A?

Thoughts?
 
It largely depends on the specific wording of the ruling, and what kind of strict scrutiny will be applied to test arms for protection under the 2nd amendment. With any luck, it won't matter what the congressional dogs try to pass, because hopefully the ruling will be broad enough to protect evil black rifles along with pistols (I'm hopeful but not expectant).
 
I think the ruling will encompass our right to obtain most small arms but with "reasonable restrictions" and those restrictions would be a federal background check, CCW course, and possibly a fee (in this case the NFA $200 tax). I think most new gun laws will be aimed at tightening up the background check, because that's all that they'll really be able to do. All of these things may be considered a PITA, but they're not exactly an infringement. You still get what you want/need while it is made more difficult for criminals to posses such weapons.
 
I still expect some verbiage like "Reasonable Restrictions are allowable" will creep in there ... without defining "reasonable" therefore AWBs and state level registration schemes are probably going to fall under the "reasonable" banner. :(

President Obama likes guns as much as he likes white people :p

Dagnabbit! Instaposted by Yamato! :neener:
 
IMO any outright ban will be difficult to pass after individual rights are restored. The reasoning behind the original AWB's was that they were military style weapons and therefore the civilians have no need for them and they are not protected under the collective rights interpretation of the 2A. An individual rights ruling makes it very difficult to use that argument.

but an AWR (Assault weapons restriction) might be doable. then maybe you would see AW's be restricted much like NFA weapons, though I doubt it would go that far.
 
Prediction - Ammo control and taxes. Sure, no AWB or 'AWR', but some parts on them will be taxed all to hell.

Just wait - soon event the cheapest 9mm will be 35 bucks a box.
 
When will they learn that it's not arms or a matter of which arms are protected by the Second Amendment but our access to them regardless?

I know it sucks for the anti-rights crowd. Too bad.

Woody
 
the AWB is in the darkest of dark right now. Heller will either effectively kill it or allow it to surface with other gun control measures.
 
A question that may deserve another thread:

Does ammunition fall under the definition of "arms" as used in the 2nd Amendment? After all, an AR15 makes a pretty inefficient club if you have no ammo for it. The reason I ask is the plethora of laws being introduced all over the country that attempt to regulate, register or tax ammunition. I think the reason we're seeing this is that the antis have seen the writing on the wall and are switching tactics to regulating something they don't see as falling under the definition of "arms".

Thoughts?
 
Ratzinger, I disagree. Any extra tax or fee on ammo would have to pass the same 'reasonable' test as weapons. If they passed ridiculous taxes on ammo, they would be explaining in court why ammo is more expensive than other items made from the same materials. Taxing ammo while weapons are protected will sound as ridiculous as saying printers are protected and then charging $5 a sheet for paper.
 
Does ammunition fall under the definition of "arms" as used in the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...
I don't think ammo itself is considered 'arms'. But loaded guns are arms. Without ammo, guns are not 'functional firearms'. A restriction on ammo is a restriction on the right to arms, in the same way that a requirement that guns be locked or disassembled is a restriction.
 
The definition of "reasonable" will be argued in courts for decades to come.

It's VERY possible that some future Supreme Court will find it reasonable to limit magazine capacity to 10.

That's why we need to keep electing Presidents who will appoint the likes of Thomas, Scalia, et al.
 
I would consider ammo as much a part of an arm as tires or fuel are parts of a car. It's the consumable part.
Click to expand...

I see it that way and you see it that way, but maybe the antis are hoping a court somewhere won't see it that way? Projecting this tactic forward, since there has been legislation at the state and federal level protecting gun manufacturers, I foresee a possible next ploy being lawsuits against ammo manufacturers. It makes no sense, but then neither do the anti gunners. We already have a state law (NJ) forbidding possession of hollow point ammunition by civilians. How would this stand up under strict scrutiny?

ETA:

If Heller goes our way and we get strict scrutiny, it's gonna be mighty hard for state and local governments to object to any weapon that police carry as being "too inherently dangerous for civilians to possess." The police are civilians and if they need hollow point ammo or automatic weapons or standard capacity magazines for their defense, then so do other civilians.
 
Just wait - soon event the cheapest 9mm will be 35 bucks a box.
Click to expand...

The way things are going, that's going to happen anyway without any extra taxation or government regulation.
-
 
Ratzinger, I disagree. Any extra tax or fee on ammo would have to pass the same 'reasonable' test as weapons. If they passed ridiculous taxes on ammo, they would be explaining in court why ammo is more expensive than other items made from the same materials. Taxing ammo while weapons are protected will sound as ridiculous as saying printers are protected and then charging $5 a sheet for paper.
Click to expand...

Im talking state-level. It has been done before, and it will be done in the future.

Writing is on the wall - AWBs are dead - failed to pass in 04, and that was it. The 'promise' to renew it by some Democrats is a promise I would take as seriously as Republicans claims to 'end abortion'. "Ban" just has a bad sound to it. "Regulation" however, well that's a Democrats middle name!


Quote:
Just wait - soon event the cheapest 9mm will be 35 bucks a box.
The way things are going, that's going to happen anyway without any extra taxation or government regulation.
Click to expand...

9mm? Right now it is still super cheap. Can get a box of 50 for 9 dollars.
 
I think President Obama or Clinton will abandon traditional methods of gun control in the event the ruling goes our way. They'll either go back to the Bill Clinton/Janet Reno ideology of using lawsuits or like MA did with the unsafe products provisions. Even more possible is circumventing the BOR and doing it through the UN. I see Obama doing this since many of the bills he's sponsored involve the UN getting bent over by the UN.
 
They'll either go back to the Bill Clinton/Janet Reno ideology of using lawsuits or like MA did with the unsafe products provisions.
Click to expand...

Those were made illegal (the stupid lawsuits against Gun makers). 'Unsafe' though? Well, golly kids thats what socialist OSHA is for!
Even more possible is circumventing the BOR and doing it through the UN.
Click to expand...

There is a supreme court case that makes that illegal - Reid v. Covert. Hugo Black proved he wasnt just a left wing hack with that case, although that silenced any remaining calls in Congress for the wonderful Bricker Amendment.
 
Those were made illegal (the stupid lawsuits against Gun makers). 'Unsafe' though? Well, golly kids thats what socialist OSHA is for!
Click to expand...

i was thinking they would apply the same litigation tactics they did against the gun manufactures but instead of using liability as a an excuse they'll make some crazy environmental issue. Sue the ammunition manufacturers this time.

Good to know about the UN though.
 
Ammo taxes, registration, purchase permits and quantity controls might all be ruled unconstitutional somedeay was well. But I'm willing to be those are all things we're going to have to go through before that ruling happens. Heller or not, things are going to get worse.
 
The courts would make themselves look pretty ridiculous if they approved of a 94-type AWB, even if they were just using a rational basis analysis.
 
If the Court employs some sort of "rational basis", what obfuscation of "shall not be infringed" would they employ? Obviously, they are attacking what arms are, or what arms are supposedly covered, and not our right to them regardless, but specifically. They'll say we have the right to keep and bear these specific arms but not these others because they have no rational use to us as non-military or non-militia employed citizens. 'Course, what they'll ignore is the fact that we should keep and bear them and remain well regulated in their use for when we do need them if called into service.

If it'll kill or break things, it's an effective weapon for the defense of the state, Union, or to defend the people from tyranny from either of the two former.

Woody
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Miller
Replies
11
Views
953
ctdonath
C
S
  • Locked
Heller + Miller = Bye bye Hughes Amendment
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
illspirit
I
L
  • Locked
Where the POTUS candidates stand on Gun Rights/Control
Replies
6
Views
371
Art Eatman
A
G
  • Locked
US will not challenge gun ban in national parks
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
coylh
C
Trunk Monkey
  • Locked
AWB 2018 V. Heller
Replies
2
Views
692
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top