Gun Control Debate #1

[Betty P]

Has a court case come up regarding banning assault weapons - the high-powered weapons? I haven't followed this issue so I don't know (please don't poke fun at people who don't know but are here to learn - not singling you out but the tone in general). I'm assuming the issue has been in the legislative branch and hasn't made it to a court case, but I don't know.

Are there any rulings about assault weapons? The case you cited specifically mentions handguns, rifles, and shotguns....which aren't in reality what most gun-regulation proponents want banned, in my observation.

tia.

According to my earlier Wikipedia link to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, it withstood 4 separate challenges in court.

A February 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions". The report said that challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed.[19]:7 The ban did not make up an impermissible Bill of Attainder.[20]:31 It was not unconstitutionally vague.[21] And it was ruled not incompatible with the Ninth Amendment by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[22]

Challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.[19]:7

In evaluating challenges to the ban under the Commerce Clause, the court first evaluated Congress' authority to regulate under the clause, and second analyzed the ban's prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. The court held that "it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce".[19]:8–9[20]:12 It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus'".[19]:9[20]:14



The law was also challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. It was argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. The reviewing court held that it was "entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes".[19]:10[23] It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon "potentially more dangerous", and were not "commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting".[19]:10–11[24]

The federal assault weapons ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment. Since its expiration in 2004 there has been debate on how it would fare in light of cases decided in following years, especially District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).[25]

And, oh yeah, DC v Heller definitely needs to be challenged when we get 100% fully qualified jurists on the bench again. There are some people on SCOTUS not fit to serve, including the guy who used to bug women attorneys about leaving their pubic hair in his Coke can. :nuts: uke:

 

[TooCurious]

Congrats, you win.

Thanks, I knew I would. Don't you think it unreasonable to talk about taking things away from people when you don't even know what they are?

 

[Inthedetails]

That is the rub, it is not a living document that changes with time

What? It sure does change.

 

[flourish]

If it never changes, why are there amendments at all? What did they amend?

 

[TooCurious]

Won't that be determined by the conversation with everything on the table that the FL Gov. is talking about? We might be doing it again or not.... I think it will be up to the will of the people---all people, not just some.

Florida will not be setting national policy, nor will grieving parents or students.

 

[CoolJ]

I think some need a refresher on "District of Columbia v Heller".



Notice the part I bolded. "Unconnected with service in a militia." The Supreme Court has ruled that the "right to keep and bear arms" is an individual right that all Americans have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Sounds to me like your SCOTUS ruled against your founding fathers.

 

[Inthedetails]

Thanks, I knew I would. Don't you think it unreasonable to talk about taking things away from people when you don't even know what they are?

Don't you think this is a nit-picky point when the topic is preventing mass shootings (that's my interest. I'm not interested in a complete ban....but keeping the high-powered weapons out of the hands of people who want to kill large numbers of people - or any number of people).

If people here use the wrong terms or need more info, it's more effective to teach them rather than ridicule. But, that's my personal opinion.

Hard to learn when each side is so dang tight and smug. That's also my opinion.

 

[RANCH]

Regardless of your personal opinion of Australia's buy back program, it worked very well. The US used to have similar
programs, though I haven't seen any in several years. No reason we can't start them up again.

Laws against large capacity magazines, etc. - yes, we had those kind of laws for many years and they worked very well. Back in the 30's they were banned outright. No one outside a war zone needs high capacity magazines, nor armor piercing bullets. We have a military and law enforcement agencies who handle killing large numbers of people on our behalf.

Limiting the amount and type of ammo someone can buy is also prudent. I favor a heavy tax on it, as well as registration.

Can you provide an example in the US of registration resulting in confiscation of something? You have to register and license your automobiles and no one can impound them unless you broke the law. Consequences, etc.

Armour piercing bullets are intended to kill police officers and others in law enforcement. They were banned for many years for that reason.

You say that Australia's "buy back" program worked well but don't acknowledge my point about the Second Amendment making it impossible to implemnet here in the US. Why?

There was no high capacity magazine ban in the 1930's. In fact there where few guns available with any kind of detachable high capacity magazines back then.

How does limiting the amount of ammo one buys work. Are you only allowed a limited life time supply of calibers that fit the guns you own? How much is that. Or can you buy a certain amount every month? Or year? Weird idea. I like the heavy tax idea. Hurts the poor much more that the rich. That's always a good thing.

How does gun registration prevent someone from killing a person? It doesn't. I guess you could use it as another tax mechanism. Yearly registration fees. Again harder on the poor and no big deal to the rich.

 

[kimlynn]

Thanks, I knew I would. Don't you think it unreasonable to talk about taking things away from people when you don't even know what they are?

I've always thought it was on the selfish side to be unwilling to give a little so others could be safe.IMO

 

[RANCH]

Sounds to me like your SCOTUS ruled against your founding fathers.

You would be wrong.

 

[Inthedetails]

If it never changes, why are there amendments at all? What did they amend?

Exactly. The constitution was amended immediately! The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments.

 

[Inthedetails]

You would be wrong.

RANCH, you are right. I haven't agreed with you on this thread tonight, but I agree with you on this one.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

:winner:

Exactly. The constitution was amended immediately! The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments.

 

[Tillicum]

All of the teachers I know don't want to be armed, nor do they want anyone else in the school besides security guards. Turning our schools into armed fortresses is damaging to children and the process of education. More guns means greater chances of someone getting killed. Better to find more sensible ways to prevent these killings.

We must live in different areas of the state. The teachers I know feel opposite of those you know. It might be because we had a school shooting just a year ago though. One thing I want to share with everyone here - I know students that climbed through windows and ran for their life. They heard and witnessed the shooting. I am sure they will never be the same but they are doing great now. Much better than any of us could have hoped. My prayer is that these students in Florida will heal and know happiness again.

 

[Karinna]

For anyone interested here is some data on mass shootings in the U.S.
(quote)
WEAPONS USED IN MASS SHOOTINGS

By: Janet L. Kaminski Leduc, Senior Legislative Attorney
You asked for a list of the weapons that have been used in mass shootings in the United States since the Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado on April 20, 1999.

We have identified at least 49 mass shootings in the United States since the Columbine shooting. These are incidents where two or more people were killed, not counting the perpetrator.

Table 1 lists each identified mass shooting incident and the weapons used.

Table 1: Weapons Used in Contemporary Mass Shootings
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

 

[Betty P]

You say that Australia's "buy back" program worked well but don't acknowledge my point about the Second Amendment making it impossible to implemnet here in the US. Why?

There was no high capacity magazine ban in the 1930's. In fact there where few guns available with any kind of detachable high capacity magazines back then.

How does limiting the amount of ammo one buys work. Are you only allowed a limited life time supply of calibers that fit the guns you own? How much is that. Or can you buy a certain amount every month? Or year? Weird idea. I like the heavy tax idea. Hurts the poor much more that the rich. That's always a good thing.

How does gun registration prevent someone from killing a person? It doesn't. I guess you could use it as another tax mechanism. Yearly registration fees. Again harder on the poor and no big deal to the rich.

We've had gun buy back programs in this country for years. They're legal. I'll get the rest of it for you in the am. For now, I'm going to bed.

 

[Inthedetails]

For anyone interested here is some data on mass shootings in the U.S.
(quote)
WEAPONS USED IN MASS SHOOTINGS

By: Janet L. Kaminski Leduc, Senior Legislative Attorney
You asked for a list of the weapons that have been used in mass shootings in the United States since the Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado on April 20, 1999.

We have identified at least 49 mass shootings in the United States since the Columbine shooting. These are incidents where two or more people were killed, not counting the perpetrator.

Table 1 lists each identified mass shooting incident and the weapons used.

Table 1: Weapons Used in Contemporary Mass Shootings
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

Awesome. I haven't read beyond a quick peek - but wanted to say thanks for the research to find the stats.

 

[CoolJ]

Some of the teachers at the school that I went to growing up have now been trained by LE and they're armed. Everyone knows that some of the teachers are armed but they don't know which teachers they are. I think and hope that will deter a shooting there but if not, I think it would definitely limit the amount of injuries.

That sounds like a fantastic idea...... if we want the next school shooting to turn into a full fledged shoot out.

 

[TooCurious]

Don't you think this is a nit-picky point when the topic is preventing mass shootings (that's my interest. I'm not interested in a complete ban....but keeping the high-powered weapons out of the hands of people who want to kill large numbers of people - or any number of people).

If people here use the wrong terms or need more info, it's more effective to teach them rather than ridicule. But, that's my personal opinion.

Hard to learn when each side is so dang tight and smug. That's also my opinion.

I specifically talking about the assault weapons ban. Assault weapons, AR's, assault rifle and hunting rifles are all the same thing basically. The AR is a platform that you can turn basically any rifle into. It just looks meaner as an AR but they are basically the same gun. Some AR clips expand the bullets from 15 to 30 but that's about it. As far as high powered ban, we'll then you get animal rights activist and state game laws involved because killing an animal with a high powered rifle is humane. The pics I showed were of a .22, that is actually illegal to hunt deer with because it isn't strong enough so say the game laws. A.22 can and will kill a person just as quick as other calibers.

The link posted by Karina shows most of the shootings were done with low caliber ammo.

 

[TooCurious]

That sounds like a fantastic idea...... if we want the next school shooting to turn into a full fledged shoot out.

Which is better than letting a person shoot at will until they tire of it. If the cops come with an active shooter on scene there will be a shootout. Why not take him out earlier with a teacher trained to use weapons and save some kids lives? No one stopped this shooter, he decided to stop shooting.