Home | About | Donate

Upholding Assault Weapons Ban, Federal Judge Says Constitution Has Nothing To Say About Banning the AR-15


Upholding Assault Weapons Ban, Federal Judge Says Constitution Has Nothing To Say About Banning the AR-15

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

In the wake of fatal shootings in Florida and California that have fueled growing demands for stricter gun laws nationwide, a federal judge


For me, this is like a breath of fresh air in Central Park. Maybe we are waking up from a nightmare and finding sanity? Maybe.


While the constitution does absoultely give the government the ability to regulate types of firearms (example: you cant make or purchase an automatic firearm that was made past 1989*) I dont particularly beleive that blanket "asssualt weapons bans will work. There are simply to many questions to be asked first and I dont yhink we have great awnsers to them (I haven’t heard many). What is an assualt weapon? If it is a semiautomatic weapon are you going to ban all semi automatic pistols or just long guns? How are law makers going to define semiautomatic since there are a variety of actions that produce a similar effect? What happens to the guns already on the market, are you going to confiscate what people payed for legally and probably spent alot of their money on? Are the weapons going to continue to be on a legal person to person market or will lawmakers send that underground? In my mind blanket bans do not work, carefull legislation that puts limits on who can buy a gun, regulates but does not eliminate the person to person sale, requires background checks, and raises the age for purchasing a semiautomatic rifle to 21 is the better option by far. I would love to hear some good awnsers to these questions, thanks a bushel.


And the 9th Amendment was included to protect basic “rights not enumerated in the Constitution.” Courts finally determine what constitutional right needs to be limited in order to protect the other guy. Our right to shout “fire!” when there’s no fire in a crowded theater certainly can be limited to keep people’s lives from harm (a basic right not listed in the Constitution). If your religion requires nudity, your religious rights might be curtailed at busy intersections - for logical reasons.

This has been going on since the Constitution was written. Why the hell has it taken so long to curtail assault weapons for “logical reasons!?”


They just showed that they don’t have to agree with your position that they can’t ban Assault Rifles. There have been many good answers to your questions, you just refuse to accept them!
They have recently implemented a ban in Deerfield, IL that says not just the AR, but anything that falls into that category which includes: semi-auto, and a large (greater than 10) magazine capacity. AR, AK, SKS, FN HK all make weapons that fall in to the banned category. That goes a long way towards legitimizing this 2-plus-decade longer standing law in MA.

If they know you own one and come for you, and you don’t part with it, that’s a $1000 a day fine.
How much did you pay for your death toy? I hope it was a whole bunch and it really hurts!
I especially hope that anyone who purchased one of these useless killing machines right after a senseless tragedy like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, etc. tries to hold onto theirs for more than 2 days of fine accrual! Or you can choose the other route, go to Deerfield, IL and pretend to be mentally challenged from Texas: go out in public with your camo fatigues and assault weapon loaded and on your person, and go walking back and forth in front of a Walmart or Chili’s. Think of it as a scientific experiment to see how they’ll respond!

There is another concept that allows for everyone who wants one of these colossal wastes of money and engineering talent to participate in the ownership liability.
It’s called insurance. Places that continually to legally allow ownership would be well within their rights to demand that owners carry insurance against their (I still haven’t gotten a direct answer from the gun nutty right, is it mis-use or regular use if a gun is used to kill someone?) “use”.

You keep on thinking that bans don’t work! Here’s the first of hopefully many.


I was driving today and I saw this Speed Limit sign.
They’ll be coming for your cars next.


I do not own one, I have never owned nor shot a firearm (I have thought about getting into blabk powder muzzleloading because its cool and looks like fun). I dont think people should be fined for owning something they had bought legally, since thats ridiculous. There are simply better ways to go about limiting firearms than sending the market underground. I would absolutely agree that semiautomatic weapons have no practical use (At least not in the ARs case which you cant hunt deer with becuase its commonly chambered in a caliber that is to small by law atleast Indiana law) from the people I know who own them they bought them for just shooting in their backyard, all of that being said if somebody wants one and are a responsible law abiding citizen over the age of 21 they should be able to have one. I agree with the ban on large magazines aswell. Also while this is not part of what you were saying I think that firearms laws are best taken care of on the federal level becuase guns can easily travel across state or city borders.


They absolutely can be curtailed within in reason the supreme court said as much in the District of Columbia v Heller.




The NRA’s saying: “THAT IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED; ONLY OUT LAWS WILL HAVE GUNS” is true, if one applies that to the biggest gun owner’s of all.


I have two different viewpoints of hunting rifles, and rifles on farms to keep predator animals away from livestock, etc… Assault rifles are a separate issue. You aim in a general direction and kill or maim everyone in front of you. That’s called war, and assault rifles need to be contained to the field of battle in declared wars. Any weapon that can be fired with the trigger down hitting multiple targets/ people should not be in general public use. The damage from these weapons can be enormous in the hands of a fanatical, crazy person.


Now maybe we can have a proper debate concerning the repeal of the second amendment to the US Constitution. It serves no purpose except as a barrier to enacting sane and prudent restrictions of firearms, their distribution, and use. Other countries’ citizens have free access to firearms without any constitutional protections, the second amendment only protects criminals who want to use them in the commission of crimes and firearm manufacturers who profit from their sale.


The answer is simple. Every American has free access to any smooth-bore, muzzle-loading long rifle or pistol using a flintlock firing mechanism. Every other style and make of weapon is subject to regulation by the city, state, and federal government.


And I would ask you one hypothetical. If you could stop 80% of school shootings by giving up your weapons, would you do it?


Since I have no weapons that is any easy yes. (Does a bow count?)


While I disagree with you on repealing the second amendment I think that debate is important. Just having the discussion allows us to put in places stronger restrictions. Repealing the second amendment isnt all that necesarry to put in place most of the restrictions that people have been talking about. I already stated what I think should be done in another post in this topic. Also in regards to your other post in here about flintlocks I completely agree. Currently all firearms that are made specifically for black powder are unregulated and anybody can buy them which I think is great. Also knife laws in all states should be like Indianas, none. While it has nothinv to do with this I have been quite suprised that so many people think of the veiw points I have expressed as some sort of radical rightwing thing, were I come from this is a quite radical leftwibg thing.


I’m waiting for a Judge to cite both the words “A Well Regulated Militia” at the beginning of the 2nd Amendment and the clauses in Article 1, Section 8 which grants Congress the responsibility for writing those regulations.

Article 1, Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Once a Judge includes those words in a Decision, it will be very Difficult for NRA apologists to claim the 2nd Amendment grants them Absolute Freedom to shoot at anything, any time, with Any Gun they can get their hands on.


Thank you for your courteous and thoughtful response. I have to disagree that the second amendment is not a barrier to sensible gun control regulation. We had sensible gun regulations 30-40 years ago, but they were winnowed down, mostly via legal challenges in court. Obviously, congress can pass meaningful gun regulations that are immune to a court challenge merely by invoking article 3 section II of the Constitution that states:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

I suspect that would be more difficult than getting 2/3 of state legislatures to propose repeal and 3/4 to approve. In the late 19th century, after anti-liquor groups finally got an amendment passed by a congressional supermajority, it was approved by 3/4 of state legislatures in a little more than a year.

In any case, I completely agree that a debate on the subject is long overdue. Honest and open debates on issues of public interest were once quite common in the United States. Isn’t it interesting the number of subjects that are literally off-limit for debate these days?


Wow, the big lie again.

The NRA is perhaps THE main provider of gun safety training in the U.S.
Law abiding gun owners are deeply invested in preventing the misuse of firearms.

Here is a guy who gets it:


Well I know the power, and I certainly respect it, of the bow. But in the gun debate I suppose a bow pales in comparison, so no. Though I would feel perfectly safer in my house with a crossbow rather than a handgun.

And one enormous advantage over a gun as a weapon, a bow is both deadly AND silent (and yes, silencers are possible, but still not as silenced as a bow).