PDA

View Full Version : New AWB post-Heller?


Dirk Tungsten
11-07-2008, 9:39 AM
Question for the attorneys on the board: I skimmed some of the text of the Heller decision, and IIRC, there is included, in the text, some wording to the effect that blanket bans on classes of firearms are unconstitutional. How would any new legislation be able to pass constitutional muster at this point?

Wouldn't the gov't need to prove the need for this legislation under some sort heightened scrutiny before the court? Would any legislation be challenged by the NRA out of the gate?

X-NewYawker
11-07-2008, 10:19 AM
Simple: You'll get to keep your Mini-14 or hunting BAR. There -- not ALL SA weapons were banned. Next!

dragonbait1a
11-07-2008, 11:29 AM
HR 1022 defined a pistol grip including "any other feature that can function as a grip" and the Mini-14 was named. If it was to pass then ALL semiauto rifles would be banned. Looks like they learned that gun people are ingenious at making things work (U-15, MMG, the Barrett hook).

As for if HR1022 (or something similarly worded) could be considered constitutional after Heller, I Don't know, but based on the optimism of people who would know, I'd say we're OK...

Until another case goes before a new Supreme Court.

YMMV

RGB

Harrison_Bergeron
11-07-2008, 11:47 AM
Ditto, when Bweise and Hoffmang start screaming about the sky falling like everyone else, then I will worry.

I Don't know, but based on the optimism of people who would know, I'd say we're OK...

Dirk Tungsten
11-07-2008, 1:13 PM
Also, I believe HR 1022 also banned the Ruger 10/22 (massive irony), probably one of the most popular plinkers in the US.......Hardly an "assault rifle".

5hundo
11-07-2008, 1:15 PM
If they make the laws, we'll find the loopholes... :rolleyes:

Grakken
11-07-2008, 1:22 PM
If they make the laws, we'll find the loopholes... :roll:

Id rather avoid any new laws and enjoy my passion for killing....papers and fruit that is. :cool2:

ptoguy2002
11-07-2008, 2:15 PM
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i123/ptoguy2002/baghdadbobAWB.jpg

sigsauer887
11-07-2008, 3:37 PM
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i123/ptoguy2002/baghdadbobAWB.jpg

:rofl2:

JDay
11-07-2008, 4:15 PM
Question for the attorneys on the board: I skimmed some of the text of the Heller decision, and IIRC, there is included, in the text, some wording to the effect that blanket bans on classes of firearms are unconstitutional. How would any new legislation be able to pass constitutional muster at this point?

Wouldn't the gov't need to prove the need for this legislation under some sort heightened scrutiny before the court? Would any legislation be challenged by the NRA out of the gate?

Simple, instead of banning features or classes of weapons they just need to list every model.

CAL.BAR
11-07-2008, 7:05 PM
Simple, instead of banning features or classes of weapons they just need to list every model.

That didn't work last time. If they ban an "HK94" then a company like Vector will simply reverse engineer it and call in a Vector 94. Naming individual weapons is a waste of time (I hope that is all they do)

hoffmang
11-08-2008, 11:28 AM
New AW bans will be proposed. I don't expect them to pass as it would cost many blue dog dem seats in the house and senate.

However, this may be a proverbial brier patch for as - as in don't throw us in there...

Heller says that any arm that is common in the civilian stock of arms can't be flatly banned. The arms that can be regulated/banned appear to be those that are both uncommon and dangerous. Taken with US v Staples (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1441.ZO.html), where Kennedy and Thomas said that AR-15's are common and not dangerous, we have pretty good comfort that an AW ban can't pass judicial muster.

-Gene

yellowfin
11-08-2008, 7:38 PM
New AW bans will be proposed. I don't expect them to pass as it would cost many blue dog dem seats in the house and senate. True. They wouldn't do it willingly, but do you think they would have their arm twisted?

CSDGuy
11-08-2008, 7:49 PM
True. They wouldn't do it willingly, but do you think they would have their arm twisted?
They won't go there even unwillingly. They know that it would cost them big time. Those "Blue Dog" Democrat seats would go directly to 2A supporting Republicans. The lesson of the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill still looms large in their "corporate consciousness". That would mean that they'd lose control of the House and possibly the Senate in one fell swoop.

RomanDad
11-08-2008, 8:59 PM
New AW bans will be proposed. I don't expect them to pass as it would cost many blue dog dem seats in the house and senate.

However, this may be a proverbial brier patch for as - as in don't throw us in there...

Heller says that any arm that is common in the civilian stock of arms can't be flatly banned. The arms that can be regulated/banned appear to be those that are both uncommon and dangerous. Taken with US v Staples (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1441.ZO.html), where Kennedy and Thomas said that AR-15's are common and not dangerous, we have pretty good comfort that an AW ban can't pass judicial muster.

-Gene

So long as Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito remain healthy for at least 4 years....

Of course, my mom was healthy as a Horse (as far as anybody knew) when she was 61.... And was dead less than a year later from cancer....

So any of you who believe in prayer... You may want to add one for the health of the members of the Scotus.

SubSolar
11-08-2008, 9:19 PM
Seems like D.C. vs Heller was a big gamble for us. All the risk and no reward. If we had lost, they could have banned all guns. Now that we won, it did nothing as far as new bans, they just can't ban all guns. Of course, to the liberals this means it's okay to ban all weapons except one shot muzzle loaders. And it's okay in their minds to increase ammo prices by 1000% by putting serial numbers on each cartridge.

hoffmang
11-08-2008, 9:55 PM
1. Listen to RomanDad above.

2. You are very wrong about Heller. The closer you read Heller the more obvious it is that anything that isn't SBS, SBR, DD, or FA is protected by the Second Amendment and can't be banned.

-Gene