It's worth notice that "assault weapons" is a loaded term, that really just means "rifles that are [scary looking | painted black | etc]". It's not a meaningful technical class of weapon distinct from other semiautomatic long guns, or really from handguns. (Handguns can be semiautomatic, can shoot the same caliber ammunition as rifles, and can have the same size magazines.)
In any case, it is reasonable that states have no interest in trying to enact some kind of "assault weapon" ban, because that would be contrary to the United States Constitution: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Just like this "human trafficking" law would be obviously contrary to the Constitution as well. I can't imagine how any lawmaker could seriously consider introducing a bill like is mentioned in the article - I guess it goes to show how corrupt some politicians can be.
No one should expect state legislatures to infringe the rights of the people that are protected by the Constitution. If someone wants to amend the US Constitution to take away either of these safeguards of peoples' rights, then let them propose that honestly instead.
A ban on "large capacity" (greater than 10 rounds) magazines was implemented 25 years ago [0]. In actuality, it did very little except to drive demand (and increase prices) for such magazines.
> The original proposals had none of that silliness. They targeted tactical rifles: short to be light, portable, and effective indoors and at close quarters, with detachable magazines to maximize sustained ability to engage targets.
This doesn't match up with my understanding of the history of assault weapon legislation. Roberti-Roos in California (1989) banned weapons by name, not by how light they were or how useful they'd be in close quarters combat. I can't find any early drafts of alternative proposals. By the time the Federal Assault Weapons ban came around in 1994, this approach was exposed as unworkable because manufacturers would make minor changes, change the model number, and get around the ban list. That's how you got the feature tests, which were added to Roberti-Roos in 1999.
If you know of any early assault weapon ban proposals that banned based on functionality, I'd really appreciate some citations. I've seen more recent proposals to ban all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, but nothing that dated to the 1980s.
The purpose of assault-weapons bans are to reduce the likelihood of a single, mentally-unstable person from killing large numbers of people with a semi-automatic rifle.
> you can evade pistol grip laws by making butt stocks with holes that provide the same effective hand positioning
Not in California. That grip is considered a 'feature' and is not allowed in conjunction with detachable magazines on a semi-automatic rifle.
> You only need one .223 centre mass or in the intestines to require immediate surgery.
Center-mass is on-target. For an inexperienced person working their way through a school or office-building, they are trying to increase the number of on-target shots, and reduce the number of magazine reloads.
> The fact that some commit heinous crimes is mentall illness, not the fault of the gun or even more so the fault of legal gun ownership.
We can't ban mental illness, so the purpose of the laws is to reduce the likelihood of certain weapons systems from falling into the hands of people with mental illness, or those with an ideological grudge and the motivation to carry out an attack. This has worked out pretty well in the state of California so-far.
> mounting a good infrared scope on a hunting rifle helps hunters place humane one-shot-stops rather than blindly causing suffering.
If a hunter needs an infrared scope to place a humane shot, then they need to go to the range and get better before they go outside and shoot an animal.
> If anything, you want to motivate people to like the guns they own, so they shoot more often and are more disciplined.
I understand this perspective, as I am a shooting enthusiast as well. However, this perspective is simply not in-line with the opinions of most voters, who don't really care how much anyone enjoys these weapons. They simply don't want to have to worry about themselves or their children getting shot by some lunatic with a gun. When they hear 'more disciplined,' they hear 'more skilled at killing my kids.' Since firearms for the vast majority of gun owners are little more than a hobby, it's really hard not to see the logic in their perspective.
Shitty headline: the SC didn't expand gun rights. What they did is void a NY law that restricted gun rights by "requiring residents to prove 'proper cause' to carry concealed firearms in public".
The point is to show by contradiction that "assault weapons" regulations are not based in any systematic or factual threat assessment. There are better arguments in favor of the right to bear arms, this one is directed specifically at how the irrationialities of gun control betray its motivation.
I think this comment highlights exactly why legislation like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was made. Anti-gun people generally don't know much about firearms, and can be appeased by the banning of cosmetic features, like folding stocks or rifles with a pistol grip, without notably affecting constitutional rights, as the potency of the weapon is not affected.
Several states and the Federal government found bump stock close enough to automatic that they are no longer legal. I’d guess the quote from the article is referring to the same point of view, a thin line from the perspective of the non gun-owning layman.
I think you're not really reading for content. Which is common with this issue. Any argument that isn't part of the standard propaganda is usually misread or ignored.
The point about assault rifles is that it's deranged that the Supreme court sees fit to allow states to ban what are essentially light weight rifles with various doodads and decorations. Weird considering riffles of all types aren't much of a public hazard. Then turns around and rules that states can't ban handguns. Despite which because they can be easily concealed and are often used for street crime are a public hazard. (Absolutely no question).
'Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand.”'
reply