HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » discntnt_irny_srcsm » Journal
Page: 1

discntnt_irny_srcsm

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Philly
Home country: USA
Current location: NJ
Member since: Thu Apr 21, 2011, 10:48 AM
Number of posts: 15,945

About Me

"The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside." AND "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." AND "The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds."

Journal Archives

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.
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Sun Aug 20, 2017, 10:42 AM (19 replies)
Go to Page: 1