General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Could they have gotten their AR-15 had the 1994 assault weapons ban still been in effect? [View all]GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Absolutely
The ban was drafted by either idiots or people looking to score political points by passing a bill that (1) had no adverse impact on anyone who was familiar with the AR platform (hence no political backlash strong enough to actually cost them on election day); and, (2) sounded good to people who weren't (hence a political benefit from people who thought the bill actually accomplished something.) Not to be overly cynical, but I suspect it is some people's current support for the backers of the AWB who still remain in Congress that we see so many replies claiming otherwise.
That being said, the task of drafting a weapons ban that would both decrease the likelihood of that number of victims during future random mass shootings would be as large as the numbers from pre-ban shooting and not saddle taxpayers with a massive bill to cover the reimbursements to existing owners who had their weapons taken under the Takings Clause of the Constitution is much easier than our DU AR fans want you to know.
Step 1: Ban the manufacture and importation of (1) any weapon capable of accepting a detachable magazine; (2) any weapon with a fixed magazine with a capacity greater than 5 rounds; and, (3) all so-called "speed loading" cartridge holders.
Step 2: Require anyone currently in possession of a detachable magazine to either plug the magazine to limit its capacity to 3 rounds (just like they ALREADY DO for shotguns used to hunt waterfowl). Because there would be no physical taking of anyone's property, a "taking" for constitutional purposes would require a showing that limiting the capacity of the magazine had significantly impaired the value of the magazine. Since there is zero real tangible value to filling high capacity magazines to the top and limiting one's capacity to mow down 27 school kids is not a constitutionally-protected activity, the three round limit would cost us as taxpayers nothing.
Easy