General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhite House Petition: Ban the AR-15 from Civilian Ownership
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/ban-ar-15-civilian-ownershipPoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC-9
The TEC-9 and, eventually, TEC-DC9 variants were listed among the 19 firearms banned by name in the USA by the now expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB).[5] This ban caused the cessation of their manufacture, and forced Intratec to introduce a newer model called the AB-10, a TEC-9 Mini without a threaded muzzle/barrel shroud and limited to a 10-round magazine instead of a 20- or 32-round magazine. However, it accepted the standard capacity magazines of the pre-ban models.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)Trolling perhaps?
NightWatcher
(39,352 posts)Has ANY White House petition accomplished anything?
Is signing this petition anything more than offering "thoughts and prayers", which is also known as doing absolutely nothing?
The only thing these petitions do is make people feel better while accomplishing nothing.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Oh...and the weapon wasn't an AR15...
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Because it takes 10 years for the challenges to come down...they were getting close and would have prevailed....
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Hard to say what might have happened in future "what if" challenges.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
A February 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions." The report said that challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed. The ban did not make up an impermissible Bill of Attainder. It was not unconstitutionally vague. And it was not incompatible with the Ninth Amendment.
Challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.
In evaluating challenges to the ban under the Commerce Clause, the court first evaluated Congress' authority to regulate under the clause, and second analyzed the ban's prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. The court held that "it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce." It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus.'"
The law was also challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. It was argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. The reviewing court held that it was "entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes." It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon "potentially more dangerous," and were not "commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting."
The federal assault weapons ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment. Since its expiration in 2004 there has been debate on how it would fare in light of cases decided in following years, especially District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
pipoman
(16,038 posts)"In common use for lawful purposes". It was going down when it got to SCOTUS and everybody knew it...
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)composed court would really find a new assault weapons ban unconstitutional?
Heller was a 5-4 decision.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)The "in common use for lawful purposes" standard will not be changed.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)We will likely get the chance to find out, much will ride on the make up of the USSC.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)into a different direction on the matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
pipoman
(16,038 posts)There is a limitation on limitations to Constitutional amendments without amending the constitution...a liberal judge will not want to set a new precedent which can endanger other amendments.
It is time for substantive activism toward the constitutionally possible instead of repeating the same failed proposals expecting different results.
Crepuscular
(1,059 posts)silly proposal that lacks any potential impact of actually addressing the issue of gun violence. All these sorts of proposals will do is drive voters towards Trump.
aikoaiko
(34,200 posts)Calista241
(5,595 posts)1. the shooter didn't even use an AR-15, despite all the incorrect reporting to the contrary. He actually used a Sig Sauer MCX, which is a very high end, very expensive, totally different from an AR rifle.
2. It will never survive appeal. There are 10+ million AR's in circulation, and if that's not "common usage" I don't know what is.
3. consumers will just switch to another platform, like AK or bullpup, or even other designs like the Sig Sauer the crazy dude actually used. and millions of AR's are already in circulation and the gov't will not start confiscating property. The shit storm that would come from a confiscation campaign would be obscene.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Especially this:
The shit storm that would come from a confiscation campaign would be obscene.
Let's just hand over the nation to the GOP, shall we?
ncjustice80
(948 posts)What true progressive would vote for the Rethuglicans over this issue? Do we really have that many lukewarn supporters??
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)ellenrr
(3,864 posts)it won't do any good.
The only thing that would make a difference against the NRA would be millions of people in the streets.
I don't see that happening.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's just popular jargon for guns that do the same basic thing, which is what the gun used in Orlando was. This is just a silly thing to point out.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... precise and technically meaningful legislation. It's like the old "assault weapons ban." The only part of it worth a shit was the ban on large capacity magazines. The rest focused on completely meaningless cosmetic features.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)WTF?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)by all means, rant on.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Not ok.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Banning an item of which there are already tens of millions of examples in circulation is nothing more than window dressing...it's "stunt politics" to give the impression of doing something, without actually doing fuck-all. Comparatively few crimes are committed with these weapons, and there are literally dozens of other similarly-functioning weapons for spree killers to select (while all the while exponentially more homicides are committed with handguns).
BTW, civilian ownership is the only kind of ownership those rifles have. The military uses a different model, a selective fire (that is, capable of fully automatic "machine gun" fire that the civilian model doesn't have).
Oh, and the Orlando killer didn't use an AR-15.
Laser102
(816 posts)LittleGirl
(8,325 posts)IronLionZion
(46,600 posts)it's a worthy goal, but do you want that level of bloodshed again?
We're dealing with people who are heavily armed and paranoid and desperately want to kill someone.
I would not want to be the law enforcement officer who has to go face these people.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)IronLionZion
(46,600 posts)do you have a lot of enemies?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)IronLionZion
(46,600 posts)happy now?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)You are saying these persons are potential mass killers?
IronLionZion
(46,600 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)stonecutter357
(12,753 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)They own an AR-15. Shouldn't be hard to find the threads, you up to the challenge?
stonecutter357
(12,753 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)In the affirmative.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And an M16A1 clone that is semi-automatic. both are AR 15 style rifles. So you say I want to kill people in a mass shooting?
stonecutter357
(12,753 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If you're implying that law enforcement is ready to carry out a massive confiscation of AR-15s in the aftermath of a ban, then you don't understand the numbers involved: about 800k LEOs with arrest powers nationwide...c. 15 million AR-15s in civilian hands. And that's leaving aside the overwhelming support for civilian gun ownership among rank-and-file officers, many of whom would not carry out such orders.
IronLionZion
(46,600 posts)Watch from 2:10 onwards
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I own a couple of AR pattern semi-automatic rifles
uponit7771
(91,073 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)uponit7771
(91,073 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)I just like competitive target shooting.
IronLionZion
(46,600 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)At least 99%.
IronLionZion
(46,600 posts)as with economic issues and other issues, the god damn 1% of fuckwits who are psychotic assholes are why you can't have things you like.
hack89
(39,171 posts)IronLionZion
(46,600 posts)and the NRA wants you to worry about losing your guns
hack89
(39,171 posts)It is not going to change. I don't care what the NRA says on the matter.
uponit7771
(91,073 posts)Lots of people have the means to kill a lot of people every day.
uponit7771
(91,073 posts)The fact that so few people are killed by rifles compared to other weapons proves that people can be trusted with them.
uponit7771
(91,073 posts)... relatively efficiently then it should NOT be trusted in the hands of the avg owner.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I have much more faith in people and I am willing to trust their judgment.
uponit7771
(91,073 posts)... and that's pretty easy and constitutional to enact.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You have a long and difficult path ahead of you.
uponit7771
(91,073 posts)... just people need to stop making excuses for voting for those who don't agree with 90% of US populous who want some common sense regulations.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Yes, 90% support stronger background checks. 90% do not support gun bans or strict measures like registration.
uponit7771
(91,073 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)The only ones I reject out of hand are AWBs and registration.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's a strange response, all the way around.
hack89
(39,171 posts)It is extremely accurate. I think you need to do some research.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You, I don't know.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)than some guy on the internet who tells me he know high power rifle competitors, and just happened to have discussed this incredibly specific thing in the past...
https://www.google.com.af/search?q=hi+power+rifle+competitions&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=919&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFkd-PgrPNAhWFVRQKHfayCpUQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=high+power+rifle+competitions
https://www.google.com.af/search?q=hi+power+rifle+competitions&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=919&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFkd-PgrPNAhWFVRQKHfayCpUQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=3+gun+competition
https://www.google.com.af/search?q=hi+power+rifle+competitions&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=919&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFkd-PgrPNAhWFVRQKHfayCpUQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=nra+high+power
They are EXTREMELY accurate firearms, capable of making .5 MOA groupings.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's not exactly the most accurate gun around.
hack89
(39,171 posts)with the right barrel and trigger group combination it is extremely accurate. You forget it is a modular design - it is very easy to customize.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Not buying it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:25 AM - Edit history (1)
Types of matches popular in High Power Rifle include service rifle, open, Axis and Allies, and F-class.
In service rifle matches, a competitor may only use an M1 Garand style rifle, an M1A (M14) style rifle, an SR-25 (M110) style rifle, or an AR-15 (M16) style rifle. A post front sight is required for the service rifle category.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_power_rifle
Here is a bunch of pictures of competitors using AR-15s
https://www.google.com/search?q=high+power+rifle+competition+ar+15&biw=1173&bih=588&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz2qDozKjNAhVE-2MKHR2IBv8Q_AUIBygC
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Any real effort to do so will result in violent resistance. That shouldn't even be in question. The notion that potentially saving the 500 or so lives lost via rifles of any type (not just ARs and such) is remotely worth the bloodshed an aggressive confiscation program would cause is insane.
IronLionZion
(46,600 posts)it's the new normal nowadays. Part of American culture
Matt_R
(456 posts)no? We don't have mental health programs being proposed, well I'll be damned. I thought we were going to tackle this "mass shooting" problem we have "from multiple angles" not just from rifle control. That is what is being proposed "rifle control" not "gun control"
Now if we could only get the population the help they need, be it counseling, medication, etc. We could get a handle on our mental health problems we face as a nation.
uponit7771
(91,073 posts)... of Donald tRump being shown to rational adults.
Most people don't want early death so it'll be subdued relatively speaking...
There would be relatively little bloodshed
scottie55
(1,400 posts)And I own an AK-47/SKS.
I will give up mine, if you give up yours......
hack89
(39,171 posts)Because I am keeping mine.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)LonePirate
(13,805 posts)Prohibiting one type of gun or a specific gun does not address the real problem.
bernie_is_truth
(17 posts)don't have 2nd ammendments and yet somehow terrorists still end up with big guns killing lots of people.
LonePirate
(13,805 posts)The 2A empowers people to kill.
DonP
(6,185 posts)How to repeal any amendment is all laid out for you.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
You'll need to start with super majorities (2/3) in both houses of Congress, the ratification process of 3/4 of all the states (38) is going to require a pretty substantial grass roots effort.
You'll need petitions to get it on ballots in all those states and there is a time limit to get the ratification votes.
But after all, 90% of America agrees with you, so no problem right?
So, instead of courageously posting "Fuck the NRA" 45 times in threads as if it matters, get off your ass and get busy starting the petition drive in your state and building the network and funding you'll need.
Or ... too much work? Then just keep whining online.
bernie_is_truth
(17 posts)You left out the certain daily use of firearms by citizens to protect themselves from evil being brought upon them whereas in countries without a 2nd ammendment law abiding citizens are completely at the mercy of evil doers.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)places with lax gun laws, like Vermont, but are so low in places with strict legislation, like D.C or Chicago.
Matt_R
(456 posts)Maybe we should tackle the mental health problems we face as a nation. Get people the help they need. Maybe even make it free or low cost, just so people go without making excuses. Or not, ban some guns, just like we ban drugs that seem to make it over our south boarder just fine.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)precision moves to overly specific, that's also a bad law. "Ban the weapon" is overly specific; the AWB was vague. Educate yourself on what it is you really want to control; educate yourself on how many guns that would actually apply to; educate yourself on whether you want a ban on further sales or a confiscation, and then figure out how many people that would affect and how many resources it would require to put into place.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Festivito
(13,514 posts)When living in rural America and confronted with a biker gang, what do I want by my side on my front porch?
Not a BB gun.
ADDING UPON EDIT:
It's a compelling argument for me.
But, if I live down the road from this guy, I want his ownership well regulated.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Festivito
(13,514 posts)just hiding an agenda that lacks a good response?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)there's a reason Malala Yousafzai's made more inroads with the people who shot her than with the American NRA that lives off nothing but idiot fantasies
Festivito
(13,514 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)eventually the amount of phantom lives saved from roiling biker mobs will outweigh the real people killed, I presume
Bonx
(2,140 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Foolish and stupid.
JohnnyRingo
(19,047 posts)...Hello AK-47
The Kalishnakov is the most widely produced assault rifle in the world. It's produced in every industrialized country around the globe, including the US.
It's like banning Vicodin and being surprised addicts switched to Demerol.
spin
(17,493 posts)at the nightclub.
The weapon was not an AR-15, it was a semiautomatic rifle with a much different design known as the Black Mamba.
This Is the Assault Rifle Used by the Orlando Mass Shooter
Developed for US special operations forces, the weapon is known as the "Black Mamba."
MARK FOLLMANJUN. 13, 2016 2:45 PM
Since the Orlando massacre early Sunday morning, pro-gun pundits have come out in force to argue that the weapon used in the attack is not an assault rifle. The gun lobby prefers to call these weapons "modern sporting rifles," euphemistic ammo it can fire in an ongoing semantic debate. But make no mistake: What the Orlando attacker used was a weapon of war. It was designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Witness this harrowing audio captured by a bystander outside the Pulse nightclub in which Omar Mateen fires 24 shots in 9 seconds.
According to a federal law enforcement official, the rifle Mateen used to murder and maim more than 100 people was a Sig Sauer MCX. Mateen legally purchased the weapon, similar to an AR-15, on June 4 in Port St. Lucie, Florida, near where he lived. (He legally purchased a Glock 17 handgun the following day, which he also carried during the attack.)
Sig Sauer bills the MCX as "an innovative weapon system built around a battle-proven core." The company says it "stands as the first rifle to be silenced from the ground up. It also accepts a broad array of accessories, enabling you to build a complete weapon system for any scenario or environment." It has a military-spec trigger and a magazine capacity of 30 rounds. According to the book Guns of Special Forces 2001-2015, the MCX is known in military circles as the "Black Mamba" and was developed at the request of the US Army's special operations forces.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/assault-rifle-used-by-orlando-mass-shooter
vkkv
(3,384 posts)- and I rarely use the 'F' word...
BAN 11+ CAPACITY magazines as well, will ya?!!
jmg257
(11,996 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... as draft legislation. Almost makes one think they're missing the point on purpose.
.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)If so then I'm in.
marybourg
(12,930 posts)Numbers matter.
Waldorf
(654 posts)ananda
(29,845 posts)Thanks for posting.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Too do nothing.
Elect a better Congress.
Also , they need to ban a class of semiautomatic weappns. There are other semiautomatic rifles just like the AR15.
livetohike
(22,656 posts)greytdemocrat
(3,300 posts)Because it won't stop with the AR.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What an effective campaign this will be!