By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
Patriot WirePatriot Wire
Notification Show More
Latest News
US reaction to Chinese balloon was ‘hysteria’ – Moscow
February 7, 2023
Musk assesses public awareness of WWIII risk
February 7, 2023
Searches Continue in Turkey, Syria as Earthquake Death Toll Passes 5,000
February 7, 2023
4,000+ killed in powerful Türkiye-Syria earthquakes
February 7, 2023
Palestinians killed in West Bank raid
February 7, 2023
Aa
  • Home
  • U.S.
  • World
  • Politics
  • 2A
  • Entertainment
  • Opinion
  • Finance
  • Health
  • My Bookmarks
Reading: Democrats Don’t Care Whether Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ Is Constitutional
Share
Patriot WirePatriot Wire
Aa
  • Home
  • U.S.
  • World
  • Politics
  • 2A
  • Entertainment
  • Opinion
  • Finance
  • Health
  • My Bookmarks
Search
  • Home
  • U.S.
  • World
  • Politics
  • 2A
  • Entertainment
  • Opinion
  • Finance
  • Health
  • My Bookmarks
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
Patriot Wire > 2A > Democrats Don’t Care Whether Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ Is Constitutional
2A

Democrats Don’t Care Whether Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ Is Constitutional

Ammoland
Ammoland August 12, 2022
Updated 2022/08/12 at 4:35 PM
Share
SHARE
I am with Stupid Democrats
iStock

Washington, DC – -(AmmoLand.com)- A week before the House of Representatives approved a ban on “assault weapons,” a federal judge in Denver explained why such laws are unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

Contents
Under the Supreme Court’s test, Moore said, those facts mean that “the right to possess, sell, or transfer” the arms covered by Superior’s ordinance is “presumptively protected.” The burden is therefore on the city to show that its ban is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”When confronted by that reality, Republicans noted, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said, “The problem is that they are in common use.” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the bill’s sponsor, likewise had no patience for Second Amendment arguments, saying, “Spare me the BS about constitutional rights.”

House Democrats either were not paying attention or did not care because they view the Second Amendment as an outmoded provision that imposes no meaningful limits on gun control.

Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held otherwise, ruling that the government may not prohibit law-abiding Americans from keeping handguns at home or carrying them in public for self-defense. The Court also has said the Second Amendment covers bearable arms “in common use” for “lawful purposes,” which presents a problem for Democrats who want to ban many of the most popular rifles sold in the United States.

On July 22, 2022, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order that bars Superior, Colorado, from enforcing its ban on “assault weapons.” The city defines that category to include semi-automatic center-fire rifles that accept detachable magazines and have any of four features: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a flash suppressor, or a barrel shroud.

Two gun-rights groups argued that Superior’s ordinance, which also bans magazines that hold more than ten rounds, violated the Second Amendment. Moore concluded that they had “a strong likelihood of success on the merits.”

Moore noted that the plaintiffs had cited statistics to support their claim that the guns and magazines targeted by Superior’s ordinance “are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” He also mentioned an earlier case in his court where both sides had stipulated that “semiautomatic firearms are commonly used for multiple lawful purposes, including self-defense,” and that “lawfully owned semiautomatic firearms using a magazine with the capacity of greater than 15 rounds number in the tens of millions.”

Under the Supreme Court’s test, Moore said, those facts mean that “the right to possess, sell, or transfer” the arms covered by Superior’s ordinance is “presumptively protected.” The burden is therefore on the city to show that its ban is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

That will be a formidable challenge, Moore suggested. “The Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public,” he said.

Like Superior’s ordinance, the bill that the House narrowly approved on July 29 covers “large capacity” magazines and includes a general definition of “assault weapons,” although its list of prohibited features is slightly different. It also bans many specific models by name.

During the debate over the bill, Democrats said the rifles they want to ban are “the weapon of choice for mass shooters,” which is not true: Most mass shooters use handguns. Democrats said the features targeted by the bill make rifles especially deadly, which also is not true: With or without those features, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity.

Even while implying that the rifles covered by the ban are good for nothing but mass murder, Democrats emphasized that the bill would exempt the 24 million or so “assault weapons” that Americans already own. They refused to grapple with the constitutional implications of banning guns that millions of people use for lawful purposes.

When confronted by that reality, Republicans noted, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said, “The problem is that they are in common use.” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the bill’s sponsor, likewise had no patience for Second Amendment arguments, saying, “Spare me the BS about constitutional rights.”

Unlike Nadler and Cicilline, federal judges like Moore cannot ignore the constitutional issue raised by this sort of legislation. Democrats will have to comply with the constraints imposed by the Second Amendment, no matter how much they might wish that it did not exist.


About Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. During two decades in journalism, he has relentlessly skewered authoritarians of the left and the right, making the case for shrinking the realm of politics and expanding the realm of individual choice. Jacobs’ work appears here at AmmoLand News through a license with Creators Syndicate.

Jacob Sullum
Jacob Sullum

Ammoland August 12, 2022
Share this Article
Facebook TwitterEmail Print
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • US reaction to Chinese balloon was ‘hysteria’ – Moscow
  • Musk assesses public awareness of WWIII risk
  • Searches Continue in Turkey, Syria as Earthquake Death Toll Passes 5,000
  • 4,000+ killed in powerful Türkiye-Syria earthquakes
  • Palestinians killed in West Bank raid

Recent Comments

No comments to show.

You Might Also Like

2A

Judge Rules Ban on Gun Possession for Marijuana Users Unconstitutional

February 6, 2023
2A

Citizens Rights Group Seeks Emergency Restraining Order Against “Weapon” Ban

February 6, 2023
2A

ID: Reclaim Your Right to Self-Defense on University Grounds!

February 4, 2023
2A

More Guns ~ Things are Looking Up in Israel!

February 3, 2023

© Patriot Media. All Rights Reserved.

  • Home
  • U.S.
  • World
  • Politics
  • 2A
  • Entertainment
  • Opinion
  • Finance
  • Health
  • My Bookmarks

Removed from reading list

Undo
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Register Lost your password?