PDA

View Full Version : Can the new AWB actually pass & hold up to Heller?


DrjonesUSA
02-26-2009, 9:42 AM
As titled, I've read assurances here there are enough blue dog dems in the house & senate to block passage of an AWB.

With that in mind, as well as the Heller decision, can the AWB pass the House and Senate and if one does pass, would it stand up to Heller?

FrankoUSA
02-26-2009, 10:02 AM
I hope not.

:gunsmilie:

bwiese
02-26-2009, 10:07 AM
Heller allows firearms that are not "dangerous and unusual". Note the 'and'.

And remember Staples case said that AR15 rifles are common and ordinary.

Dr Rockso
02-26-2009, 10:09 AM
Heller allows firearms that are not "dangerous and unusual". Note the 'and'.
So basically that means 'unusual', since all firearms can be considered dangerous under the right circumstances.

mecam
02-26-2009, 10:14 AM
Heller allows firearms that are not "dangerous and unusual". Note the 'and'.

And remember Staples case said that AR15 rifles are common and ordinary.

Did they say anthing about AKs, FALs, and others?

Also, if an AW BAN was to pass, do we have to register in CA? There has been so many threads, I can't remember what the answer was.

Librarian
02-26-2009, 10:18 AM
Did they say anthing about AKs, FALs, and others?

Also, if an AW BAN was to pass, do we have to register in CA? There has been so many threads, I can't remember what the answer was.

As usual, have to wait for a bill; the prior Federal aw law did not include registration, but a new one? Nobody knows.

AaronHorrocks
02-26-2009, 10:21 AM
Registration is the last step before confiscation.

Remember what happend in New Orleans!

ohsmily
02-26-2009, 10:48 AM
Did they say anthing about AKs, FALs, and others?

Also, if an AW BAN was to pass, do we have to register in CA? There has been so many threads, I can't remember what the answer was.

There is no answer because there is no bill....yet. Let me check my crystal ball.

Though, the last bill didn't involve registration and it certainly didn't involve STATE registration since it was a FEDERAL law.

garandguy10
02-26-2009, 10:56 AM
The weapons ban will sail through congress like food through a goose,both Republicans and Democrats in congress will vote for it with few exceptions. This time the ban will be confiscatory and permanent.and will include M1 Garands and M1 carbines,M1A's,Mini 14's etc.basically anything semiautomatic and/or with a capacity to hold more than two[2] rounds. Perhaps a few years down the road it will go to SCOTUS,however the court will be packed by Obama,and Heller will be overruled IMHO.

Anthonysmanifesto
02-26-2009, 10:58 AM
The weapons ban will sail through congress like food through a goose,both Republicans and Democrats in congress will vote for it with few exceptions. This time the ban will be confiscatory and permanent.and will include M1 Garands and M1 carbines,M1A's,Mini 14's etc.basically anything semiautomatic and/or with a capacity to hold more than two[2] rounds. Perhaps a few years down the road it will go to SCOTUS,however the court will be packed by Obama,and Heller will be overruled IMHO.


Please link to the bill.

fear can be motivating at times- but without a bill- im confused

garandguy10
02-26-2009, 11:03 AM
Please link to the bill.

fear can be motivating at times- but without a bill- im confused

I have no link,My comments are a Hypothesis of a likely scenario. Please note the IMHO.

yellowfin
02-26-2009, 12:23 PM
She might be trying to diffuse the public anger she knows will get stirred up. I doubt very seriously she's on our side. She's just playing politics...imagine that.

berto
02-26-2009, 12:29 PM
heres a wierd scenario-

Nancy pelosi doesn't soudn too interested- at least publicly


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

Why show interest now with a war going, the economy in the dooker, and no actual bill on the table? She needs House dems on board with other stuff right now.

CapS
02-26-2009, 12:33 PM
The Dems are still smarting over what happened to them after the last ban was passed. I don't think they're going to do anything that similar any time soon, & risk their jobs. More likely ::puts on wizard's hat:: they'll try sneakier things than any outright ban. Various ammo regs, microstamping, smart guns, like that.:dots:

/Cap

:donatello:

dreyna14
02-26-2009, 1:14 PM
The weapons ban will sail through congress like food through a goose,both Republicans and Democrats in congress will vote for it with few exceptions. This time the ban will be confiscatory and permanent.and will include M1 Garands and M1 carbines,M1A's,Mini 14's etc.basically anything semiautomatic and/or with a capacity to hold more than two[2] rounds. Perhaps a few years down the road it will go to SCOTUS,however the court will be packed by Obama,and Heller will be overruled IMHO.

Somehow, I don't think this is too far from the truth. Given another 10 years or so, we'll just be remembering about how fun it was to go to the range.

CAL.BAR
02-26-2009, 1:15 PM
Heller allows firearms that are not "dangerous and unusual". Note the 'and'.

And remember Staples case said that AR15 rifles are common and ordinary.

Heller specifically mentioned weapons used commonly for "home defense". Not just common and ordinary. States (and the Fed) can still propagate "reasonable restrictions" on guns. You may have a tough argument (outside Calguns) that you need an AR15 to defend your apartment or tract house - or more importantly, that it's common to use an AR15 to defend your apartment.

sorensen440
02-26-2009, 1:16 PM
I don't believe it can hold up in court

AaronHorrocks
02-26-2009, 1:21 PM
I don't believe obama was born in Hawaii, but look at where we are now!

dfletcher
02-26-2009, 1:25 PM
So basically that means 'unusual', since all firearms can be considered dangerous under the right circumstances.

Well this is what makes for good court cases I suppose. I should think there is a bit of a sliding scale with respect to what is dangerous and what is not and that "dangerous" is meant within the context of all guns being more dangerous than a dog or aspirin, for example. I suppose a lion is more dangerous than a weiner dog, and the least dangerous lion is more dangerous than the most dangerous weiner dog. So I'd hope the approach used is "all is relative".

IGOTDIRT4U
02-26-2009, 1:30 PM
heres a wierd scenario-

Nancy pelosi doesn't soudn too interested- at least publicly


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

My take on her response? She did not want the cat out of the bag at this point, nor did she want to be upstaged by Holder. She wants to take credit for getting the AWB started!

KDOFisch
02-26-2009, 3:49 PM
Heller specifically mentioned weapons used commonly for "home defense". Not just common and ordinary. States (and the Fed) can still propagate "reasonable restrictions" on guns. You may have a tough argument (outside Calguns) that you need an AR15 to defend your apartment or tract house - or more importantly, that it's common to use an AR15 to defend your apartment.

You haven't visited Texas much, have you? ;-)

EZ G
02-26-2009, 3:58 PM
I don't believe it can hold up in court

The problem is we have to endure, weaponless till it gets to court and even then it may not go our way. In fact it most likely will not.

Heller is not a wall of separation between gun grabbers and our guns. Far from it. It merely affirms an individual right. It leaves wide open the regulation of that right. If the courts choose a rational basis test for the regulation, ANYTHING WILL PASS SCRUTINY.

I think we are looking at our worst case scenario far quicker than we ever imagined.

rbgaynor
02-26-2009, 4:39 PM
The problem is we have to endure, weaponless till it gets to court and even then it may not go our way. In fact it most likely will not.


Actually it is more likely in the post Heller world in which we now live that we would be able to get an injunction preventing any law from going into effect while it is being litigated. Similar to how most of the "for the children" Internet censorship laws never saw the light of day.

Jpach
02-26-2009, 5:10 PM
Heller specifically mentioned weapons used commonly for "home defense". Not just common and ordinary. States (and the Fed) can still propagate "reasonable restrictions" on guns. You may have a tough argument (outside Calguns) that you need an AR15 to defend your apartment or tract house - or more importantly, that it's common to use an AR15 to defend your apartment.

Djandj, you seem to forget that you said that common and ordinary weapons are protected by the 2A. I really dont get why you are saying that it will be tough to argue that we need an AR-15 to defend our apartment when an argument wouldnt be necessary to begin with. Just because "Heller specifically mentioned weapons used commonly for 'home defense,'" doesnt mean that a weapon must be used for self defense in order for it to be protected. Thats kinda why they mentioned the whole common and ordinary weapons thing... :confused:

Jerkdog
02-26-2009, 5:27 PM
OMG! Is the sky falling? Go up a few links and read this:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=149441

A renewal of the AW ban is a perennial action since the sunset in 2004; Remember the Dems had a majority from the 2006 election - and the 2007 and 2008 versions did not pass....

The sky is NOT falling.

Until there's a bill to look at, let's not get our panties in a bunch. Let's go shoot our guns instead and b*tch about how expensive everything has gotten.

DedEye
02-26-2009, 5:45 PM
Threads like this are fun. I like trips to Imagination Land.

When we look in our crystal balls, can I put on my robe and wizard hat?

Meplat
02-26-2009, 6:08 PM
Well, you have no danger of being thought to be foolishly optimistic,


The weapons ban will sail through congress like food through a goose,both Republicans and Democrats in congress will vote for it with few exceptions. This time the ban will be confiscatory and permanent.and will include M1 Garands and M1 carbines,M1A's,Mini 14's etc.basically anything semiautomatic and/or with a capacity to hold more than two[2] rounds. Perhaps a few years down the road it will go to SCOTUS,however the court will be packed by Obama,and Heller will be overruled IMHO.

7x57
02-26-2009, 6:18 PM
I think we are looking at our worst case scenario far quicker than we ever imagined.

No, worst case would be having to take it to a court full of Obama appointees. Given that we're going to have to go there at some point, starting now may be as good a chance as we get.

But in fact nobody can evaluate which throws of the dice are best. That is the problem. Well, except for the fundamental problem that human rights and rule of law are matters of dice throws to begin with.

7x57

AngelDecoys
02-26-2009, 7:59 PM
Can the AWB pass the House and Senate and if one does pass, would it stand up to Heller?

Nope. Pretty much all semi-autos are off the table. Since they use technology well over 100 years old, they are all considered common arms.

As to other aspects with regards to magazine capacity, sole use of FFL's for transferring arms, registration & licensing, amongst other things, those may actually be found constitutional.

I'm amused (and saddened) by all the threads. The anxiety level is reaching a new level.

Strategically, I think a federal AWB passed sooner over later is infinitely better for us. Passage, followed by an almost immediate injunction, followed by 6 months until heard by today's SCOTUS would be ideal. And who knows, we might even get incorporation on the same day.

Publius
02-26-2009, 9:01 PM
Passage, followed by an almost immediate injunction, followed by 6 months until heard by today's SCOTUS would be ideal. And who knows, we might even get incorporation on the same day.

It would take a lot more thank 6 months to make it through district court and circuit court to SCOTUS. Hopefully we WOULD have an injunction in the meantime. And there'd be no chance of incorporation for a federal ban because the effect of the 2nd Amendment on state governments would not be at issue in any way.

Publius
02-26-2009, 9:02 PM
Given another 10 years or so, we'll just be remembering about how fun it was to go to the range.

Under those circumstances, we'd deserve it. If Obama decided to do away with elections, I wouldn't settle for wistfully remembering how fun it was to cast my ballot each election day.

AngelDecoys
02-26-2009, 9:22 PM
It would take a lot more thank 6 months to make it through district court and circuit court to SCOTUS.

I'd guess on it moving faster than we might think.

Hopefully we WOULD have an injunction in the meantime.

Considering its standing as an individual right, it's unlikely that it wouldn't be granted.

And there'd be no chance of incorporation for a federal ban because the effect of the 2nd Amendment on state governments would not be at issue in any way.

I know this already. Should incorporation occur after an AW ban is thrown out, out goes the CA ban along with it. Should incorporation occur before, any ruling federally may widen the freedoms in CA. And therefore, all the more reasons to push it federally.

luvtolean
02-26-2009, 10:33 PM
Why show interest now with a war going, the economy in the dooker, and no actual bill on the table? She needs House dems on board with other stuff right now.

This administration has proven it'd love to pass this legislation.

It has nothing to do with getting dems on board, it's to do with keeping Dems in their seats, she knows this, people are already angry over other stuff, and 2010 is close...

Mulay El Raisuli
02-27-2009, 7:14 AM
The problem is we have to endure, weaponless till it gets to court and even then it may not go our way. In fact it most likely will not.

Heller is not a wall of separation between gun grabbers and our guns. Far from it. It merely affirms an individual right. It leaves wide open the regulation of that right. If the courts choose a rational basis test for the regulation, ANYTHING WILL PASS SCRUTINY.

I think we are looking at our worst case scenario far quicker than we ever imagined.


But they already chose, & "rational basis" wasn't it. Jerkdog is right. We're getting ourselves all worked up over nothing. Again I'll mention that there is much to be learned from what our enemies think. At present, they don't think it'll fly. And if they don't think it'll fly, why should we? That doesn't mean we should break out the beer & burgers, 'cause the fight ain't over yet, but I think we should relax a bit. Maybe go to the range. Or, if ya just can't relax, maybe fight a fight that does need attention now. Like the UOC event tomorrow.

The Raisuli

Aegis
02-27-2009, 7:47 AM
The politicians in DC better concentrate on the economy and more pressing issues and quit trying to punish law abiding citizens. The Democrats should have learned a lesson from a few years back that their attempts to ban guns is a losing issue for them especially now with Heller in place.

12voltguy
02-27-2009, 10:05 AM
where is the NRA poster on this question?
Say something bad about the NRA & he is here right fast & in a hurry:D
I would like to see his take on this.......wouldn't this be a good thread to recruit members in anyway?