You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #55: Heller says a BAN on a class of lawful weapons is NOT constitutional. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-09 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Heller says a BAN on a class of lawful weapons is NOT constitutional.
Edited on Mon Jan-05-09 11:13 PM by Statistical
You seem to be arguing that banning is regulating which is pre-Heller thinking.
DC argued that under the DC handgun ban citizens still had the right to own rifles or shotguns.

The court disagreed:
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The Districts total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibitionin the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acutewould fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Supreme Court of the United States (Heller vs DC) 2008

SCOTUS clearly indicates that BANNING an entire class of weapons, even if other classes are available is unconstitutional if the weapons are used lawfully and are in common use.

My prediction is Chicago will lose their handgun ban and as a result the courts will affirm that the 2nd is incorporated via the 14th and applies to all states.
It will take a long time (Heller took 6 years). After that a suit will be filed using incorporation of 2nd as precedent against CA for their ban on "assault weapons".

Back to a federal AWB (which is easier to win in court because no incorporation issues)

Two major criteria that SCOTUS indicated. In common use & lawful purpose.

COMMON USE:
If we use the terms of 1994 AWB then "assault rifles" are the most commonly sold class of rifles today. There are about 20 million "assault rifles" (per 1994 def) in lawful use.
If we use some new more expanded def then it becomes even MORE weapons thus even more "in common use".
If you are talking about semi-auto pistols then it is the overwhelming majority of weapons in the United States.

LAWFUL PURPOSE
All rifles (not just so called "assault" rifles) were used in <3% of all homicides and even less violent crimes (<1%).

So to get a ballpark number:
1.6 million violent crimes. Let's say 1% involved assault rifles (which is likely way to high because the # is LESS THAN 1% and that is ALL RIFLES) that is 16,000 assault rifles involved in violent crime.
Once again I only do this for sake of argument because since "assault rifles" are used in so few crimes the FBI has no stats other than <1%. Less than 1% could mean 1,600 or 160 or 16.

16,000/20,000,000 = 0.08%.
So 99.92% of assault rifles are used lawfully.

How exactly do you think the fed govt can prove that:
1) assault rifles are not in common usage (20 mil in cir)
2) assault rifles are not used for lawful purpose (99.92% used lawfully)
in order to pass constitutional scrutiny.

The truth is there is no way in hell they can. When they fail the law will be overtuned and any price (in terms of loss of support) paid for the law will be for nothing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC