Can we agree to ban the weapon used by the mass murderer?
I keep reading on DU that I'm not allowed to suggest banning "semi-automatic" weapons because "nobody can define what they are."
So I have a suggestion. Let's ban the specific weapon that the killer used to kill 49 people and injure 50 more in minutes. Let's start with that one. No need to define it. Just take it off the market.
Anyone have a problem with that?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Golly, let's ban Muslims, too. Who cares if millions of them here in the US are normal, peaceful good neighbors? A handful of them have committed mass murder!
"Common usage" is not the end of the Heller test.
That only gets you to whether a firearm is covered by the Second Amendment AT ALL.
For example, the Government could completely ban the sale and possession of fully automatic weapons (the fact that it has not done so is irrelevant). It can completely ban the sale and possession of sawed of shotguns. No Second Amendment question whatsoever.
I'll accept, for the purposes of the civil argument we are having, your apparent claim that such things as high-capacity magazines, semi-automatic firing capability, etc., are not only now as common as the sands of the seashore, but also that the definition of "common" can be changed by custom and practice and is not limited to those classes/types of weapons (notice I said "classes of weapons" so don't go off on a tangent about how I am claiming that you may only own muskets because I am not) which were "commonly" held by private citizens at the time of the Founding. Is that fair enough?
Even if weapons such as the AR and AK knock-offs and these high-capacity, small caliber/low bullet weight semi-automatic side arms -- which are all the rage among: (1) criminals; and, (2) the suburbanites who have been led to believe they are at imminent risk from such criminals by racist/classist/ethnocentric NRA propaganda -- are covered by the 2nd Amendment, the Government can STILL impose reasonable restrictions on such weapons so long as those restrictions do not "substantially impair" the constitutional right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. As Justice Scalia reminded us, that's Constitutional Law 101.
Now your "Oh, that would be unconstitutional, no question" argument is not so clear-cut. Heller describes two basic activities (heck, let's call them "natural rights"
protected by the Second Amendment . . . self-defense and sustenance.
Does limiting magazine capacity to 6 rounds "substantially impair" the "right" of self defense? Are there non-hyperbolic and statistically-significant threats out there which are substantially better protected through the use of high-capacity magazines? Are you starting to feel a little less smug?
But were not done, because when we are looking at limitations on constitutional rights, another factor comes into play . . . the governmental interest involved. When dealing with fundamental rights, the Government may restrict those rights only by showing that the restrictions are narrowly drawn AND protect an important governmental interest, BUT they can restrict even fundamental rights.
Do you have an argument that preventing the use of semi-automatic weapons during mass shootings is not an important governmental interest? I'd love to hear it. Okay, how is limiting magazine capacity (not possession, not "style," not caliber, not even rate of fire) not narrowly drawn? Do you have a narrower restriction on gun design/possession that you can point to?
Oh, btw, before your next snide remarks . . . go to law school.
Were you actually meaning to reply to someone else??
Anyway, since we are on the subject, many of the recent gun decision seem to be decided depending on the level of scrutiny applied, because, though if govt interest, they ARE found to be at contrast with the 2nd.
Maryland AW was 'struck down' (strict), NY AW was upheld - though the mag limit at 7 was NOT and was struck down (intermediate), etc.
Many anti-gun laws will be challenged with regards to the 2nd. Not all will be found to be constitutional. And the make-up of the court is/will be highly important, as well as the level of scrutiny applied.
So you may see various posts were I actually state "tough call" with how the courts would decide re:constitutionality.
I understand the govt interest in passing such laws, and its...'role' in these decisions, and do not argue against it.
Starting to feel a bit less on a soap-box?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/assault-rifle-used-by-orlando-mass-shooter
What would that accomplish?
Or the one used in Sandy Hook, which was CT legal at the time.
or go NY Safe Act, and so buy these fugly things:
(or simply not really comply like 95% of the people)
If we are going to do something, make it worth while.
it won't stop a criminal, no matter what weapons can be homemade and be as effective in the confines of a night club. The weapon shown below uses standard sheet metal and plumbing parts and requires no real CNC skill just a little bit of ability with some basic tools. It's a 9mm submachine gun and fires fully automatic and is completely illegal, but criminals can make them easily.
I wish I had an answer to this, but disarming 150 million people because 49 died seems no more effective than banning all muslims because one killed some people.
The weapon pictured isn't mine, but I can easily make this weapon and test it out as I have an awful lot of land and no one will be the wiser....if a dummy like me can make them, someone motivated could easily churn out dozens for a terrorist act.
