HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » The assault weapons contr...

Sun Aug 20, 2017, 10:42 AM

The assault weapons controversy

Attorneys for the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation on Friday filed the 325-page petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Stephen Kolbe and a series of gun stores and shooting clubs asking the court to protect popular semi-automatic rifles and magazines from prohibition. http://www.guns.com/2017/07/24/maryland-assault-weapon-challenge-appealed-to-u-s-supreme-court/


At issue is a Maryland ban passed in 2013. In 2014 a US district judge upheld the ban saying:
"Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual..." wrote U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake...

...

To explain this, she noted the Supreme Court indicated in Heller that military grade M-16 rifles could be banned as dangerous and unusual, then went on to write "Given that assault rifles like the AR-15 are essentially the functional equivalent of M-16s — and arguably more effective — the same reasoning would seem to apply here."

Blake also found in her ruling that rounds fired from assault weapons have enhanced penetrating capabilities and therefore pose a higher risk to both law enforcement than the bullets fired from other types of firearms. Nevertheless, when plaintiffs questioned the practice under the ban of allowing retired law enforcement officers to receive and keep assault weapons and large capacity magazines, she dismissed the objection saying, "they are better equipped than the general public to handle and store firearms safely."
(Foundational statements by that court which I find faulty are in bold.)

I personally believe that states have certain sovereign powers that do and should allow the regulation of guns within the limits of US SC precedence. The question at issue here for me is that IMHO facts accepted by the court in the original case before Judge Blake were limited and inaccurate.

My issue with any AWB is that a law regulating firearms:
>> Must, without reliance on a brand, model or manufacturer, functionally identify the target weapon.
>> Must not contain language such as "similar to". A weapon meets the criteria or not.
>> Must not contain simply appearance based non-functional criteria.

In your opinion, is there a case where ban on a type of firearm could/should be acceptable?
Please explain your criteria if you answer yes.
If you believe no classes or types of weapons should be more tightly regulated, please explain your reason(s).

Thanks Have a great day.

19 replies, 4096 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply The assault weapons controversy (Original post)
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 OP
HeartachesNhangovers Aug 2017 #1
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #2
ileus Aug 2017 #5
pablo_marmol Aug 2017 #3
The Mouth Aug 2017 #4
ileus Aug 2017 #6
pablo_marmol Aug 2017 #7
The Mouth Aug 2017 #8
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #9
The Mouth Aug 2017 #10
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #11
The Mouth Aug 2017 #12
pablo_marmol Aug 2017 #13
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #14
pablo_marmol Aug 2017 #15
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #16
pablo_marmol Aug 2017 #17
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #18
pablo_marmol Aug 2017 #19

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sun Aug 20, 2017, 01:55 PM

1. I think that the first criteria for a ban

should be: "Are government agents on US soil (i.e., not on a foreign battlefield) generally allowed to use this firearm?" If the answer is: "Yes, government agents are generally allowed to use this firearm", then non-prohibited members of the public should also be allowed to have and use that firearm.

The reason is that I don't think that government agencies should have special rights that are denied to members of the public.

Similarly, when people argue that members of the public should be required to have only "smart guns", my thought is "Are police forces and other government agents required to use smart guns?" No they aren't, so the public shouldn't be either. No special rights for the government!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HeartachesNhangovers (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 20, 2017, 02:48 PM

2. I agree

that seems fair

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HeartachesNhangovers (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 20, 2017, 09:42 PM

5. I must say this is a great litmus test.

But hopefully it wouldn't be limited to a particular brand....wouldn't want my CZ's banned from import.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sun Aug 20, 2017, 05:21 PM

3. Post #1 sums up my sentiments.


The fact that The Controllers will apparently never grasp out of willful ignorance is that there are so many "assault weapons" and regular, or "large" capacity magazines in circulation that the bad guys will never have a problem getting them. Ergo, by extension you must allow good citizens to have them, unless you take the morally outrageous view that it's AOK for criminals to be able to out-gun the law-abiding citizenry.

Pro-restriction supporters show their moral bankruptcy in a thousand ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sun Aug 20, 2017, 07:09 PM

4. I don't have, don't want, and never will have an 'assault weapon'

I've got some pretty nasty and highly effective stuff for DEFENSE of life and home, but not the slightest interest in assaulting anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Mouth (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 20, 2017, 09:52 PM

6. Sounds kind of like me, I only have counter assault firearms.

Well that and hunting, target, general plinking and collectors firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Mouth (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 21, 2017, 03:48 AM

7. Riiiiiiiight.


Because as any real Democrat knows, "assault weapons" can't possibly be used for defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 21, 2017, 11:31 AM

8. :-)

I just hate that term.

There is no such thing, in my opinion, and even the phrase is a bad one.

If you let the other side control language, you lose.

I think the nomenclature important because I have zero intent of assaulting anyone. If I need to use a firearm to defend my home or life that is not assault, nor is it same if I go plinking or target shooting.

I find it pretty useful to try to get anyone preaching 'gun control' to define what it is they want to ban or abolish. Now, I'm the kind of guy who writes with a fountain pen; strictly wheelguns and bolt action or pump, nothing with technology newer than about 125 years old, but even if they want to rant, whine and wail about a ar15 they are still basically talking about a hunting rifle, albeit one updated in an ergonomic manner (since I don't need to traipse through muck and mire I don't really care about the weight as all I have to do is from the car to the bench at the range)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Mouth (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 21, 2017, 02:54 PM

9. re: "There is no such thing, in my opinion, and even the phrase is a bad one."

Agreed... as is the term gun-"control".
There is no control beyond self-control.
Control of human behavior beyond self-control is a myth.
It's more misleading and dishonest terminology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #9)

Mon Aug 21, 2017, 05:14 PM

10. you mean those guns don't just jump up

and shoot innocent civilians on their own?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Mouth (Reply #10)

Mon Aug 21, 2017, 08:06 PM

11. True but...

...what I mean is that you can make all the laws you want, a law won't make everyone do only good things.

If laws stopped crime, that is what "control" implies, then we wouldn't have murders or armed robberies. They are against the law.

I read stories about one heinous crime or another and when some knife wielding serial rapist claims a sixth victim, I don't hear anyone suggest that a new law would be the answer. Now if I read about some useless scum shooting 6 people, it wouldn't be hard to find someone demanding a new law that would surely solve the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 21, 2017, 10:12 PM

12. yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 23, 2017, 06:47 PM

13. Maybe I'll have a wooden GUN FREE ZONE plaque made.......


........for the entryway of the pad. That'll keep me safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 23, 2017, 10:12 PM

14. If you live in an apartment or certain type of town home...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #14)

Wed Aug 23, 2017, 10:32 PM

15. Great! (What caliber used on target?! Shotgun slugs?)


Those are some very large holes. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek -- would prefer not to advertise the presence of guns in the pad.
Like your graphic nevertheless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 24, 2017, 07:07 AM

16. Not sure of the cal, not my graphic.

It's one thing not to advertise the presence. It's another to advertise absence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #16)

Thu Aug 24, 2017, 10:08 PM

17. Yup.


Funny how proponents of "gun control" go silent when you propose that they demonstrate the courage of their convictions by placing a 'Gun Free Zone' sign on their front door or front yard. And how they roll their eyes when you point out truthfully that they benefit from gun ownership even though they don't own a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #17)

Fri Aug 25, 2017, 08:10 AM

18. I think they deny that they benefit

Some say that love is the strongest force in the world.
If that's true, then denial comes in a close second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #18)

Fri Aug 25, 2017, 07:47 PM

19. Ego is right up there too. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread