Mass shooting

[Guest Derek L]

You know that they are restricted and not easily accessible like other guns are, don't you?

http://www.guncite.c...l_gcfullau.html

2nd amendment be damned.... automatic weapons are restricted. So, why can't assault type weapons and high capacity magazines be restricted as well?

Automatic weapons are restricted or completely banned in some States and cities, as are handguns, semi-autos etc………..And background checks are a requirement for handguns from a dealer in most States anyways………..$200 isn’t much a “restriction” when one is going to fork out thousands for an automatic……

Here’s an online dealer, with a handy map on which States one can purchase an automatic:

http://atfmachinegun.com/Legal.aspx

light green it's A.O.K

[The_Squid]

So there is no 2nd amendment roadblocks or issues with putting more restrictions on other guns and ammo.

[bush_cheney2004]

So there is no 2nd amendment roadblocks or issues with putting more restrictions on other guns and ammo.

Not as long as possession and right to "bear" are not infringed. The courts would overturn such laws.

Americans have the right to own and bear firearms.

[Guest Derek L]

They are covered, with ownership regulated by federal law. There is a fully operational M2 "Ma Deuce" machine gun at my local shooting range.

http://www.cga.ct.go...2009-R-0020.htm

One dealer down is Scottsdale had one going for just over 25k………Also had several Grease Guns for about the same………45ACP is a lot cheaper than .50 BMG……..I look at the Browning as over 400 rounds a minute, the wife $400 a minute

[Guest Derek L]

Not as long as possession and right to "bear" are not infringed. The courts would overturn such laws.

Americans have the right to own and bear firearms.

Exactly………Just enforcing current laws and closing the gun show loophole would make a world of difference….

[bush_cheney2004]

One dealer down is Scottsdale had one going for just over 25k………Also had several Grease Guns for about the same………45ACP is a lot cheaper than .50 BMG……..I look at the Browning as over 400 rounds a minute, the wife $400 a minute

Right...many of these collectible firearms will never send a round down range again. Some people here don't realize just how big the collector's market is for firearms. They are significant historical artifacts and prized by many as such, regardless of their efficient utility in killing people.

If I could afford one, an original Gatling Gun would be the bee's knees !

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly………Just enforcing current laws and closing the gun show loophole would make a world of difference….

These gun grabbers don't get it...responsible and law abiding gun owners in Canada and the U.S. already have to comply with numerous regulations and restrictions, and most gladly do it for safety and liability reasons. We're not all a bunch of yahoos.

[Guest Derek L]

Right...many of these collectible firearms will never send a round down range again. Some people here don't realize just how big the collector's market is for firearms. They are significant historical artifacts and prized by many as such, regardless of their efficient utility in killing people.

If I could afford one, an original Gatling Gun would be the bee's knees !

Certainly, I’ve got a handful of WW II and “Wild West” era rifles that maybe see ~20 rounds through the pipe once a year……..30-06, 44/40, 8mm Mauser and .303 British isn’t cheap……

[The_Squid]

But the gun nuts keep claiming that any restrictions are unconstitutional. But, clearly, this isn't the case at all. The 2nd amendment doesn't prevent restricting weapons.

[Guest Derek L]

These gun grabbers don't get it...responsible and law abiding gun owners in Canada and the U.S. already have to comply with numerous regulations and restrictions, and most gladly do it for safety and liability reasons. We're not all a bunch of yahoos.

Exactly, and for the most part, the laws make sense (here)……..Safe Storage and licensing, for most Canadian gun owners are a no brainier………What goes sideways, is when those who’s only exposure to firearms is Hollywood, start trying to make the laws………

I think the best possible restriction that one could place (If you had to) on the AR-15, is requiring it to have wood furniture

[Guest Derek L]

But the gun nuts keep claiming that any restrictions are unconstitutional. But, clearly, this isn't the case at all. The 2nd amendment doesn't prevent restricting weapons.

Restrictions on what one can legally own most certainly are form a 2nd amendment point of view…….Let people own what they want, just require a (and enforce) background checks……..I think the NRA is even in favour of that, as are many (bigger) gun dealers and manufactures……….It absolves legal culpability.

[dre]

You know that they are restricted and not easily accessible like other guns are, don't you?

http://www.guncite.c...l_gcfullau.html

2nd amendment be damned.... automatic weapons are restricted. So, why can't assault type weapons and high capacity magazines be restricted as well?

They can be restricted. In fact a ban on some of this stuff just expired. Its going to be an uphill battle though to get any legislation in place, because the government is half controlled by bible belt pig farmers.

Edited January 17, 2013 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

Bible belt pig farmers get to vote too....that is also in the same Constitution that gives citizens the right to bear arms.

[dre]

Restrictions on what one can legally own most certainly are form a 2nd amendment point of view

The purpose of the second amendment was to allow for militias... thats why the opening language is...

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ”

Furthermore the second amendment only covers the kinds of weapons that were available when the second amendment was written as was laid out by the courts in District of Columbia VS Heller... So it only protects peoples rights to own weapons that were in common use by ordinary citizens in 1791.

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

Its not the constitution thats preventing gun regulations... Again from heller...

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The supreme court also said that the government is free...

“…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

This is of course why the gun lobby is so desperate to prevent any legislation... They KNOW the courts probably WILL uphold it. otherwise they wouldnt care.

Edited January 17, 2013 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

The purpose of the second amendment was to allow for militias... thats why the opening language is...

And:

.....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not the Militia, the people........

Furthermore the second amendment only covers the kinds of weapons that were available when the second amendment was written as was laid out by the courts in District of Columbia VS Heller... So it only protects peoples rights to own weapons that were in common use by ordinary citizens in 1791.

Nope, see United States vs Miller

As to the rest, nope, see the Tenth Amendment ……….DC is a federal enclave, not a State…………New York State can attempt to ban AR-15s and North Dakota can issues CCW permits with all their State Drivers licences and allow citizens to store AR-15s in gun racks in the back of their trucks……….Obama can’t ban AR-15s in North Dakota, but the Obama administration, through Congress can ban certain types of firearms crossing State Lines that have State bans on said firearms………Just as he can make all gun crimes a felony.

[dre]

As to the rest, nope, see the Tenth Amendment ……….DC is a federal enclave, not a State…………New York State can attempt to ban AR-15s and North Dakota can issues CCW permits with all their State Drivers licences and allow citizens to store AR-15s in gun racks in the back of their trucks……….Obama can’t ban AR-15s in North Dakota, but the Obama administration, through Congress can ban certain types of firearms crossing State Lines that have State bans on said firearms………Just as he can make all gun crimes a felony.

No sorry the federal government can ban the sale of assult weapons as they did in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons".

And nothing in the case you cited effects the caselaw established in heller. The second amendment only includes the guns that were in "common use" in 1971, and the the federal government has banned a whole host of weapons since then without any objection by the courts.

This isnt a second amendment issue. If the executive and legislative branch want to they can simply ban these weapons as they did for 10 of the last 18 years. Its already been ruled constitutional... sorry.

Washington, D.C.’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines doesn’t violate the constitutional rights of residents in the U.S. capital, a federal appeals court ruled.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today also upheld registration requirements for handguns put in place after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 ended the city’s almost total ban on firearms. The three-judge panel ordered a lower court to further review other aspects of Washington’s gun control law, such as its limits on multiple purchases.

“The District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime,” Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote in the 2-1 ruling.

[Guest Derek L]

No sorry the federal government can ban the sale of assult weapons as they did in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons".

And nothing in the case you cited effects the caselaw established in heller. The second amendment only includes the guns that were in "common use" in 1971, and the the federal government has banned a whole host of weapons since then without any objection by the courts.

This isnt a second amendment issue. If the executive and legislative branch want to they can simply ban these weapons as they did for 10 of the last 18 years. Its already been ruled constitutional... sorry.

No, you could still legally buy and sell AR-15s during the AWB.........I lived in in the Lone Star State during it.

[dre]

No, you could still legally buy and sell AR-15s during the AWB.........I lived in in the Lone Star State during it.

No sorry the federal government can ban the sale of assult weapons as they did in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons".

And nothing in the case you cited effects the caselaw established in heller. The second amendment only includes the guns that were in "common use" in 1971, and the the federal government has banned a whole host of weapons since then without any objection by the courts.

This isnt a second amendment issue. If the executive and legislative branch want to they can simply ban these weapons as they did for 10 of the last 18 years. Its already been ruled constitutional... sorry.

[Guest]

If the Assault Weapons Ban needs a logo...

[Guest Derek L]

You're relying on Wiki..........AR-15s couldn’t be made with flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, telescoping/folding stocks or pistol grips during that time………Of course one could purchase legally all of the above accessories and add them after the fact

[Guest Derek L]

A AWB compliant AR-15:

And not compliant:

[dre]

You're relying on Wiki..........AR-15s couldn’t be made with flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, telescoping/folding stocks or pistol grips during that time………Of course one could purchase legally all of the above accessories and add them after the fact

No sorry thats wrong again. The AWB specifically named AR-15's as prohibited.

In the U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis)

And again this isnt a second amendment issue. The federal government is totally free to renew the AWB if they choose to.

[dre]

A AWB compliant AR-15:

And not compliant:

Sorry but the clip on your compliant model looks like it holds more than 10 rounds.i

The Act also defined and banned 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices', which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than a certain number of rounds, and that up to the time of the Act were considered normal or factory magazines. Media and popular culture referred to these as 'high capacity magazines or feeding devices'. Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a 'normal' capacity and 'high' capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.

[Guest Derek L]

No sorry thats wrong again. The AWB specifically named AR-15's as prohibited.

And again this isnt a second amendment issue. The federal government is totally free to renew the AWB if they choose to.

You're wrong

The AR-15 was deemed an "assault weapon" when It was made with a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, pistol grip that extended well below the rear stock and a telescopic or folding rear stock……….Google AWB compliant AR-15s...........trust me, I know guns.

AWB good to go..........No longer a baby killer

[Guest Derek L]

Sorry but the clip on your compliant model looks like it holds more than 10 rounds.i

It does, and has a bayonet lug..........10+ round mags were legal, if made prior to '94....same with the lug.

And it's mag, not clip

And it also has a flash suppressor, also legal, if not made and sold with it.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Derek L