Assault Weapons & the 2nd Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
BritChaser

BritChaser

Well-known member
(PLEASE NOTE: The purpose of this thread is to promote a discussion of what the U.S. Supreme Court might do. This thead has no other purpose.)

In light of the 2nd Amendment, would the U.S. Supreme Court uphold a ban on so-called assault weapons like the AR-15? I wonder. What better weapon could a citizen bring to a muster of the militia than an AR-15? To be sure, a militia will need bolt-action scoped rifles for snipers, shotguns for MPs, and sidearms for officers. But the average militia infantryman and other militia members could not bring from home better arms to bear for militia duty than AR-15s IMO.

What do you think the Supreme Court might consider or do if confronted with a 2nd Amendment challenge to a federal or state ban on assault weapons?
 
BritChaser said:
(PLEASE NOTE: The purpose of this thread is to promote a discussion of what the U.S. Supreme Court might do. This thead has no other purpose.)

In light of the 2nd Amendment, would the U.S. Supreme Court uphold a ban on so-called assault weapons like the AR-15? I wonder. What better weapon could a citizen bring to a muster of the militia than an AR-15? To be sure, a militia will need bolt-action scoped rifles for snipers, shotguns for MPs, and sidearms for officers. But the average militia infantryman and other militia members could not bring from home better arms to bear for militia duty than AR-15s IMO.

What do you think the Supreme Court might consider or do if confronted with a 2nd Amendment challenge to a federal or state ban on assault weapons?
Click to expand...

I applaud you for trying to have a civil discussion on the issue.

I don't think the SCOTUS would up hold a ban on assault weapons like that but we may see stricter laws on capacities of said guns.:cheers:
 
I saw Rahm on tv this morning calling an AR 15 a 'gun of war'. I suppose any gun that's been used in war would be the same. He's whacked in the head.

Speaking from ignorance here(me) - how many times can a SCOTUS look at the same law for interpretation? Until the other side has the ruling they want?
hasnt this been reviewed and ruled already?
 
One result might be a clear cut decision on the varied state laws which involve guns. It might free gun owners from poorly designed laws which are bothersome. Might refine the 1968 gun control act, or send it back to be redrawn. I suspect that the interpretaton will be determinded by what the "real" Federal Law says. The federal laws are all based upon interstate commerce and taxes there on. If it is interstate commerce, which includes manufacturing, shipping, all interstate activities. This will be the foundation of a decision. I am not well versed on the subject. I will say the decision on the federal health insurance law was a surprise to some, but predictable, it was, and is guided by the same process, the citation states it was an interstate tax law, a tax the federal government could impose because it is "interstate trade". It is the "law of the land". I will say also say, that the Clinton admistration assault weapons ban was unchalleged in the US supreme court in it's 10 year life span. supreme court judges currently conservative, and rule for where we will be many years downstream, and any tinkering in the constitution is made slowly, and diliberately.
 
UplandHntr said:
How many times can a SCOTUS look at the same law for interpretation? Until the other side has the ruling they want?
hasnt this been reviewed and ruled already?
Click to expand...

Great question, sir. SCOTUS only reviews the narrow constitutional issue presented by the appeal of a case from the lower courts. In the two recent Second Amendment decisions, the only question was whether the respective governments could outlaw gun possession in a home. They decided no other question. As you know, they held that a person has a Second Amendment right to possess a gun in their home. No decision has ever been made as to whether there is a Second Amendment right to possess a gun in a motor vehicle, to possess a so-called assault weapon, etc. These issues will have to await a case where someone is prosecuted for carrying a gun in a motor vehicle contrary to a state or federal law, possessing an assault rifle, etc. Again, great question.
 
Last edited:
Labman said:
And, for those of you who vote for these individuals year after year, and for president, I hope your happy. Politicizing a tragedy to further their agenda. Heck, they were going after our 2nd ammendment rights before this latest tragedy. Bunch of hypocrites to, because most of them own many different guns themselves. You can not blame anyone for freaking out about their guns with this guy in the oval office........... CORRUPT is his middle name.
Sorry if I offended anyone, which i'm sure I did. But, the Right isn't coming after our guns.......it's the liberal left......

:cheers:
Click to expand...

I thought his middle name was Hussein:confused:
 
captaincoot said:
Who decides when the militia needed?
Click to expand...
Another great question.

The governor if a state has a militia, or the federal government (see Art. I, sec. 8, U.S. Constitution).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top