Defensive Carry banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,879 Posts
Well, the author buys the canard that since weapons that are banned under the NFA (1934) are uncommon they should continue to be banned. They are uncommon precisely because they are essentially banned, of a limited population and expensive to own - both purchase price due to the limited pool of guns and the cost of a trust and the stamp. If the NFA were repealed, select fire M4s and M16s would be as popular and "common" as the current semi auto M4s and AR15s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ccw9mm

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,157 Posts
Can the Government Ban ‘Assault Weapons’? Constitutional Experts Weigh In
Yes they can. Will it stand in court? Not sure..
 
  • Like
Reactions: pgrass101

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,071 Posts
Based on the fact that they did it in 94 and it stood for 10 years I would say it appears the CAN do it. Not saying it is right, but history would suggest they can and will if given a chance.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,765 Posts
They can ban anything they want too
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
144,844 Posts
I think that they should try banning hard liquor, beer, and wine some time as a "test case" just to see if an outright ban like that would be effective. :hand5:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,569 Posts
I think that they should try banning hard liquor, beer, and wine some time as a "test case" just to see if an outright ban like that would be effective. :hand5:
- We already have a test case. Drugs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
"can" is an interesting word. We know the ban can be enacted because we have already had one for 10 years.
So yes they can. Should they? Would it be possible to enforce? Would it withstand future legal challenges on
grounds not used during the prior ban? Who knows!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
The "Second Amendment" was written by our forefathers to protect the people from its national Government. They did not want our government one day to become what their British government had become. Now think about this "IT IS THE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT THEY WANTED TO PROTECT" behind the freedom clause of the "First Amendment", these amendments were not just listed "willy nilly". they were listed by importance. If the morons in Washington use their heads for something other than growing hair they might understand what is going on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
859 Posts
Based on the fact that they did it in 94 and it stood for 10 years I would say it appears the CAN do it. Not saying it is right, but history would suggest they can and will if given a chance.
The Supreme Court rulings of Haller and McDonald weren't both in place at that time; which ruled that military weapons were precisely protected for ordinary citizens by the Second Amendment. So I reckon they'd not be able to get the votes for a ban, and that would be in part because they'd get legal advice (like it or not) that a ban was unconstitutional. Surely that underpinned Feinstein's failure the second time around.

Perhaps the converse is needed: with the Court's rulings, perhaps now is the time to press for the legalising of full autos. I seem to be seeing references to silencers in the USA, when I thought they, too, were banned by the same Act; so are they legal somewhere/somehow?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
The Supreme Court rulings of Haller and McDonald weren't both in place at that time; which ruled that military weapons were precisely protected for ordinary citizens by the Second Amendment. So I reckon they'd not be able to get the votes for a ban, and that would be in part because they'd get legal advice (like it or not) that a ban was unconstitutional. Surely that underpinned Feinstein's failure the second time around.

Perhaps the converse is needed: with the Court's rulings, perhaps now is the time to press for the legalising of full autos. I seem to be seeing references to silencers in the USA, when I thought they, too, were banned by the same Act; so are they legal somewhere/somehow?
[sarcasm] Uh, that would do wonders for easing the ammo shortage.[/sarcasm]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,622 Posts
...yup, pay, wait, carefully follow the law...and a US citizen can own a suppressor, if he can own a firearm...under Federal law...some states' laws forbid it...
The Supreme Court rulings of Haller and McDonald weren't both in place at that time; which ruled that military weapons were precisely protected for ordinary citizens by the Second Amendment. So I reckon they'd not be able to get the votes for a ban, and that would be in part because they'd get legal advice (like it or not) that a ban was unconstitutional. Surely that underpinned Feinstein's failure the second time around.

Perhaps the converse is needed: with the Court's rulings, perhaps now is the time to press for the legalising of full autos. I seem to be seeing references to silencers in the USA, when I thought they, too, were banned by the same Act; so are they legal somewhere/somehow?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
We can debate & descuss it but the fact is today's Government leaders don't care anything about the original intent of the US Constitution. They only care about protecting their benefits & making sure we continue to pay for them. We are going down a path that will eventually lead to nothing good. Our forefathers left a out of control Government & put the USC in place to prevent what we have now, a out of control power hungry National Government.

It really isn't if they will trample on the 2nd amendment, they will because they have to for power they want over the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snub44

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,182 Posts
Based on the fact that they did it in 94 and it stood for 10 years I would say it appears the CAN do it. Not saying it is right, but history would suggest they can and will if given a chance.
I'm not so sure, as in Heller and the 2nd follow-up ruling in Heller, that they cannot ban nor prohibit guns that are in common use by the public. Heller had to go back, because Wash DC tried to say he couldn't buy the semi-auto handgun he wanted to buy. They again ruled in Heller's favor.

In 1994, AR's were that common, they were out there.... but not anything close to what they are now. Given that literally there are so many out there, and you have the Heller ruling, it may not float at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,761 Posts
Well, the author buys the canard that since weapons that are banned under the NFA (1934) are uncommon they should continue to be banned. They are uncommon precisely because they are essentially banned,......
Psssssssstttttttt, of course they can ban whatever they can get the votes on....

Keep in mind that the weapons that were banned under the NFA were in common use in the 1930's....... Also we had a 10 year ban on certain rifles that were in common use and still are...... Ya get the picture....
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top