Assault Weapons Ban Before U.S. Supreme Court

[Purveyor]

Source: NBC NEWS

The U.S. Supreme Court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear a challenge to a suburban Chicago law banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons.

If the court agrees to hear the case, it would cast a shadow over similar bans in seven states. But declining to take it up would boost efforts to impose such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.

Gun rights advocates are challenging a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois, that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. In passing the law, city officials cited the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.

The ban also lists certain specific rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapon-ban-u-s-supreme-court-n442056

[uawchild]

1. What are the odds?

Being exceptionally cynical today, I feel the odds of the US Supreme Court agreeing to hear this case to further increase access to these weapons is 5 to 4.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Only 4 votes at review conferences are required to grant leave to appeal.

Either way, the right of local government to write sensible local gun control laws is a no brainer.

[TeddyR]

4. And the Court

Has recently passed on several other challenges to firearms law. Doubt they'll hear this one -- the law itself isn't that onerous so probably not something the Court will think violates the Second Amendment.

Fred, I agree that local government should be able to write sensible gun control laws. I assume you are also ok with local governments writing sensible concealed carry laws as well?

[Igel]

13. I view it as just increased consistently.

The rights in the Constitution trickle down; originally imposed on the federal government and not the states, an amendment made all the rights applicable at the state level.

It's taken 150 years (and counting) for that to be leveled. Some rights were forced down a level or three quickly; others are taking their sweet time about it.

This is like many other things. When states want to write laws that are at odds with the federal government, there are two responses. (1) Good for them. (2) How dare they?! Usually when a (R) says (1) a (D) says (2). And vice-versa. Mostly our view of states rights depends entirely on our view of the law or regulation at hand. Yet we continue to insist that it's some higher principle that's being upheld.

[rockfordfile]

35. you sound like a right-winger

[Lizzie Poppet]

3. However this turns out, I doubt it will have much effect on gun crime.

"Assault weapons" are, to put it bluntly, a sideshow. For all the attention mass shootings (in which these weapons are sometimes used), they are used in <400 homicides a year...out of c. 11k (and 30K if you include suicides, in which once again, these weapons are seldom used). Figuring out better ways to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals and suicidal persons is where progress will be made in stemming the bloodshed.

[ManiacJoe]

8. That is what happens when the definition

of "assault weapon" is based on looks instead of functionality.

In the real world, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". "Assault weapon" is just a useless term defined in legislation to create an artificial group of guns.

[Sam1]

30. there really are assault rifles

The military definition of an assault rifle is a rifle with a selector switch that is capable of firing either semi automatically or three round bursts or semi auto and full auto. selling a rifle with a selector switch is illegal however partially complete lower receivers for the ar-15 can be purchased that can then be completed to receive a selector switch.

[ManiacJoe]

44. You fell for the trap.

Assault rifles and "assault weapons" are two different things. No common definition of "assault weapon" contains any assault rifles. The term "assault weapon" is purposely chosen to confuse people into thinking "assault rifle".

[SecularMotion]

14. What's the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle?

[EX500rider]

17. Assault weapon is a made of term for scary looking black rifles...

......which are really no different then the non-scary looking semi-auto rifles.

Assault rifles are a military weapon which can fire at full auto and is used on the attack to spray a lot of bullets to keep the enemies head down while you advance.

[SecularMotion]

26. So an assault weapon is a semi-auto rifle modified to fire like an assault rifle?

[EX500rider]

27. No

A "assault weapon" is any black semi-auto rifle that may have a large capacity magazine or a flash suppressor or a lug to mount a bayonet. It is no different then the wooden stocked semi-auto rifle but looks scarier to some.

A real military assault rifle has full auto capability and usually a 3 round burst and single shot mode also.

[SecularMotion]

28. I think I'm correct

Assault rifles vs. assault weapons

The term assault rifle, when used in its proper context, militarily or by its specific functionality, has a generally accepted definition with the firearm manufacturing community. In more casual usage, the term assault weapon is sometimes conflated or confused with the term assault rifle.

In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Assault_rifles_vs._assault_weapons

[EX500rider]

29. Not really....that agrees with what I said..

...."they are semi-auto rifles the have certain features generally associated with military firearms.'

Those features are the cosmetically unimportant ones like black polymer stock/folding stock/bayonet lug/flash suppressor but not the real defining feature of the assault rifle which is the full auto mode.

It's like saying your car is like a nascar race car because you have redbull stickers on yours too.

[SecularMotion]

31. I don't see where it mentions "cosmetic features"

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Why not take the word of a well-known gun control advocate, Josh Sugarman:

A concern with cosmetic features are very much part and parcel of the effort to ban
certain firearms:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

[EX500rider]

38. Read a little further in your link:

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified a definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher

While a real Assault rifle is full auto.

[SecularMotion]

40. Still doesn't say "cosmetic features"

[EX500rider]

41. It doesn't have to but that's still what they are.

No one actually putting a bayonet on the end. That makes that a cosmetic feature. Black polymer stocks are a cosmetic feature Vs a wooden stock. Flash suppressor's look "cool" so that's cosmetic feature. Folding stock are rarely folded so also cosmetic.

But the one thing that makes a assault rifle is the full auto mode which "assault weapons" lack.

[melm00se]

48. let me provide you with 2 visuals

this gun


and this gun


are functionally identical.

they share
- Same action (the parts of the gun that move when fired)
- Same ammunition
- Same capacity

Differences
the lower one has:
- a shorter barrel (can't shoot as far as effectively)
- adjustable stock (this can improve the "fit" of the rifle)
both of which combine to make the lower rifle anywhere between 1/4" and 4" shorter but still almost 3 feet long
- pistol grip (for some improves the ergonomics)
- picatinny style rails (used to mount among other things a scope, lights and forward grips)

none of the differences make the lower rifle a more effective device (in fact, some folks might argue it makes it worse as the lower rifle is 10% heavier and all the cosmetic doodads can dramatically shift the balance), all they do is give the lower rifle (to some eyes) a more aggressive profile

[Gregorian]

6. This is working on the symptom, which is good, but

An arms ban is good in a dense modern society, but it isn't going to make people happier. That's the whole point of society, and government, and democracy, and economy. With actual democracy, people wouldn't be eating shitty food, and paying wild prices for health care and college, and not getting enough time off work to even breast feed a baby, which grows up without the proper gut bacteria to improve upon the dna she was given in order to make this a better world.

...but I digress.

[MisterP]

18. most school shooters and arms dealers have been raised with every advantage

it's not the fucking gut bacteria, okay?

[Turbineguy]

7. Well, it's a great chance to get more people killed,

so speaking as somebody who advises young people to take up mortuary science as a career, I suppose the gun rights advocates will win.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Unfortunately for those with views like yours, rifles of any kind aren't the problem

Handguns are:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls


https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-20

You lot would get farther if you were less interested in 'taking a stand' and more interested
in actually fighting crime..

[Turbineguy]

10. You are correct of course.

Last edited Mon Oct 12, 2015, 06:33 AM - Edit history (3)

On top of that handguns are less efficient for killing large numbers of people. They are harder to aim and control and carry fewer rounds in the magazine or clip or whatever the correct word-du-jour is.

An assault rifle ban would cost $100's of millions in lost sales to gun manufacturers and retailers. That cost per life saved simply isn't worth it. Life is cheap. At least at this point.

[hack89]

11. Have you forgotten Va Tech? Nt

[NickB79]

12. Rifles of all types kill 400/yr. Handguns 6000-7000/yr.

Rifles are not the problem by a long shot.

[Turbineguy]

15. Only 400 people per year?

Well, that's hardy worth the effort of pulling the triggers. I've noticed (at least in pictures anyway) that these types of guns are the most popular among the real gun-nuts who are itching for another civil war and a chance to shoot people without the unpleasantness of a semi-functioning justice system. There's probably nothing to that, because we might be guilty of projecting the future which of course will never happen.

[NickB79]

16. Yes, and that includes hunting rifles

Wait, we are discussing ways to most effectively combat gun deaths in this country, right? Ways to stop the most gun-related killings in the most rapid fashion, correct? Every day that goes by, dozens more are shot and killed, so time is urgent, not to be wasted on sideshow acts.

Because if that's the case, then assault rifles are pretty low on that list of priorities.

And if the day comes (which is won't, btw) that enough gun nuts think a civil war is the way to go, well, I don't think the Marines will be too worried about their toys. The Marines have much bigger toys to bring to the party.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. I wouldn't be so sanguine about TPTB being able to put down a rebellion

It would be a terrible thing, of course, but I would remind you that the
the Taliban are still very much active in Afghanistan, despite many billions of dollars
and thousands of lives spent in a war against them

[Chan790]

21. Your average teabagging militia RWNJ is hardly a talib.

The mujaheddin fought the Russians in arid wasteland for over a decade...the average militia goon can't make it a weekend outside his lounger chair and separated from his canned beer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. History is full of proclamations that "the war will be over quickly"

The vast majority of them were wrong, the most recent example being the
US invasion of Iraq

I'd also remind you that the Provisional IRA tied up a goodly chunk of the British Army
for decades, despite never having more than a few thousand members. There are
80 million gun oweners in this country. If even 1% decided not to go along quietly,
that would mean 800,000 insurgents.

There is a phrase you should become familiar with: Asymmetrical warfare.

Many of those you refer to as 'militia goons' are military veterans, and are already
quite familiar with the concept...

[beevul]

42. He forgets how much of an effect just 1 DC sniper had.

I cringe thinking about what effect a thousand of them might have.


Sobering.

[Calista241]

37. The day the military begins an armed action against US citizens within US borders

is the day our country falls apart. Everyone gets sort of annoyed about civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Can you imagine a drone strike killing 20 women and children in western North Carolina. The US government would collapse after such a debacle, and the party that voted for laws that instituted these programs would find itself forever out of power.

Imagine the Kent State incident happening on a daily or even weekly basis. In our 24 hour news cycle, the government could not withstand those repercussions. People are already up in arms about police forces having Stryker vehicles, but that is a far, far cry from the US Army having M1 tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles on the streets.

And like in Iraq and England (when they fought the IRA), an insurrection against the US government will probably not be firefights in the streets. It will be bombings of government buildings, IEDs, and other such activities.

[NickB79]

25. The Taliban isn't composed of 300-lb, 50-yr old men living off Papa John's and Pepsi

I have seen precious little evidence that almost any of the extreme rightwingers that espouse anti-government views (and who compromise only a small subset of all gun owners, btw) are capable of walking a few miles down the street, much less conduct guerrilla warfare operations successfully against US police and military forces.

I'm sure there exist some strapping young men, fully capable of humping a full combat load through mountains and forests, who would seriously consider starting a civil war, but damned if they're to be found in any significant numbers.

The closest thing I've seen so far was that nutjob that shot two cops in Pa (Eric Frein), and the two escaped convicts up in New York earlier this year.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. We are talking about 80 million people, more or less

If even 1% of them 'aim to misbehave', they would far outnumber every cop in the country.

Even if 90% of that 1% only talk the talk, that's still tens of thousands of armed people
with a grudge against the government. And they will have sympathizers- anyone
halfway familiar with RW rhetoric knows that.

How long did it take to run the James-Younger gangs to earth? (and there were two
dozen of them at the most)

They don't have to "win", they simply have to not lose

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. Not all of them run off at the mouth and post videos. The quiet ones are the most effective

These guys, for example, operated for 20+ years, and there were only 20 of them
at most

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Organization_17_November

[Lizzie Poppet]

39. You think those Marines would only be on one side of a civil war?

I don't...

But I agree: that day's not coming.

[Doc_Technical]

20. I think civilians can own semi-automatic weapons,

but they must be stored in a secure armory and only removed from there
so the owners can use them for training in a
"well regulated militia."

[truthisfreedom]

22. I have a semi-auto shotgun that holds 6 rounds.

No special rules for semi autos that I'm aware of, but for full autos you need a special dealer's license.

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. Good luck with *that* idea...

[dembotoz]

33. i always wanted a tank...maybe i can get one....

a tiger tank would be cool but i have growing respect for the russian ww2 models.... wonder what the ups charge would be....

[beevul]

43. Have at it.

http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/products/tanks-2#currency=USD

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

[frizzled]

45. I'd like a tactical nuclear weapon wired to my brain on a deadman switch, like Raven in Snow Crash

nt

[happyslug]

46. The Supreme Court has decided to wait till Monday October 19, 2015 to decide to take this case.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-assault-weapons-supreme-court-20151013-story.html

The case is Arie Friedman vs. the City of Highland Park,

Here is the opinion being appealed:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D04-27/C:14-3091:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:1541776:S:0

Brief by ARIE S. FRIEDMAN AND THE ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION, for the Supreme Court to take the case:

http://www.isra.org/Portals/6/ISRA%20documents/litigation/As-filed%20Final%20Brief%20from%20Cockle.pdf

[Purveyor]

47. Thanks for the update