Are federal assault weapons bans unconstitutional?

[Ebowed]

You must remember Don supports the federal government removing arms from people during times of national crisis. He supported that freedom hating activity going on in New Orleans when the cops beat up on old ladies to take away their handguns.

Which is just disgusting.  Confiscating weapons during emergencies when they are most needed (how were people supposed to protect themselves from looters if the government took their weapons away?) is a horrible thing to support.  Clearly only complete freedom haters could ever support such tyranny.

[Bono]

The first amendment does not authorize the "right to keep and bear mouths", it authorizes speech and makes no mention of the form of delivery.  The second amendment speaks about "arms", as a form of delivery, in their context in 1789.

The Constitution does not refer to the right to keep and bear such types of arms as existed in 1790. It refers to the right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional justification for including your proposed caveat.

The justification is assumed.  What was considered in the common vernacular to be a "computer", like a digital watch, 40 years ago - would not be referred to as a "computer" in today's common vernacular.

Freedom of the press also meant the freedom to print things. it did not relate to the television or the radio.

Which is why we have an FCC to regulate them

Not if they're on cable/satellite.
Plus, the FCC can't regulate political speech on them.

[opebo]

Obviously not, nor would be any ban on any type of guns.

[MODU]

No.  Nothing in the Constitution says the government cannot limit the type of weapons the public can own.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Emsworth, the constitution is a living, breathing document.  It is there to be interpreted by everyone.  A progressive view of the constitution is not a bad thing.  Frankly I like the "new" way of thinking.  You shouldn't dismiss someone's opinions just because they're a closet socialist neo-con.

I should point out that the Constitution is not a table rasa for a group of judges to use to inflict their opinions upon us.

If you don't like a provision of the Constitution, amendment is in order.  This has been done several times.

My post was sarcasm directed at those who support these ridiculous "assault weapon" bans, CARL.  I do not actually believe what you quoted.

Yeah, I give you credit for being sensible.

Was posting to point out that many on the left want judicial activism to mangle the Constitution as they realize they cannot achieve their objectives via the electoral system.

[opebo]

Emsworth, the constitution is a living, breathing document.  It is there to be interpreted by everyone.  A progressive view of the constitution is not a bad thing.  Frankly I like the "new" way of thinking.  You shouldn't dismiss someone's opinions just because they're a closet socialist neo-con.

I should point out that the Constitution is not a table rasa for a group of judges to use to inflict their opinions upon us.

If you don't like a provision of the Constitution, amendment is in order.  This has been done several times.

My post was sarcasm directed at those who support these ridiculous "assault weapon" bans, CARL.  I do not actually believe what you quoted.

Yeah, I give you credit for being sensible.

Was posting to point out that many on the left want judicial activism to mangle the Constitution as they realize they cannot achieve their objectives via the electoral system.

I believe the assault weapons ban was acheived through the electoral system, Carlheadan.

[Emsworth]

Nothing in the Constitution says the government cannot limit the type of weapons the public can own.

More importantly, nothing in the Constitution says that the federal government can limit the types of weapons the public owns.

[The Constitarian]

Nothing in the Constitution says the government cannot limit the type of weapons the public can own.

More importantly, nothing in the Constitution says that the federal government can limit the types of weapons the public owns.

The Constitution is very short but in two places it says this, once in the second ammendment where it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shale not be infringed, and again when it says powers not enumerated in the constitution are reserved for the states and the people.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Emsworth, the constitution is a living, breathing document.  It is there to be interpreted by everyone.  A progressive view of the constitution is not a bad thing.  Frankly I like the "new" way of thinking.  You shouldn't dismiss someone's opinions just because they're a closet socialist neo-con.

I should point out that the Constitution is not a table rasa for a group of judges to use to inflict their opinions upon us.

If you don't like a provision of the Constitution, amendment is in order.  This has been done several times.

My post was sarcasm directed at those who support these ridiculous "assault weapon" bans, CARL.  I do not actually believe what you quoted.

Yeah, I give you credit for being sensible.

Was posting to point out that many on the left want judicial activism to mangle the Constitution as they realize they cannot achieve their objectives via the electoral system.

I believe the assault weapons ban was acheived through the electoral system, Carlheadan.

And, as even Bill Clinton noted, this was THE major reason why Republicans were elected control of both chambers of Congress in 1994!

[MODU]

Nothing in the Constitution says the government cannot limit the type of weapons the public can own.

More importantly, nothing in the Constitution says that the federal government can limit the types of weapons the public owns.

The Constitution is very short but in two places it says this, once in the second ammendment where it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shale not be infringed, and again when it says powers not enumerated in the constitution are reserved for the states and the people.

No, it says the right cannot be infringed.  The act of saying "you cannot own this gun, but you can own all of these other kind of guns" does not infringe on the right to actually own a gun.

[Bono]

Nothing in the Constitution says the government cannot limit the type of weapons the public can own.

More importantly, nothing in the Constitution says that the federal government can limit the types of weapons the public owns.

The Constitution is very short but in two places it says this, once in the second ammendment where it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shale not be infringed, and again when it says powers not enumerated in the constitution are reserved for the states and the people.

No, it says the right cannot be infringed.  The act of saying "you cannot own this gun, but you can own all of these other kind of guns" does not infringe on the right to actually own a gun.

In that case, the text would readl "shall not be denied", not "infringed".

[WiseGuy]

Yes, I think federal bans on any kind of weapon are unconstitutional.  However, as some have already pointed out, States have the power to do so.  It says powers not enumerated here shall be reserved for the States or the People.  That said, if I was Governor of a state and a ban was proposed, I'd vote against it.

[Emsworth]

Yes, I think federal bans on any kind of weapon are unconstitutional.  However, as some have already pointed out, States have the power to do so.  It says powers not enumerated here shall be reserved for the States or the People.

The privileges or immunities clause extends the Second Amendment to the states.

[WiseGuy]

Yes, I think federal bans on any kind of weapon are unconstitutional.  However, as some have already pointed out, States have the power to do so.  It says powers not enumerated here shall be reserved for the States or the People.

The privileges or immunities clause extends the Second Amendment to the states.

Dude, your knowledge of the Constitution scares me (and I've read it three times!)  I guess I agree, I never know for sure I definitely oppose assault weapons bans.

[AkSaber]

Yeah, they are very unconstitutional. Not only that, they have to be some of the dumbest laws ever to come out of D.C.