Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: White House Petition: Ban the AR-15 from Civilian Ownership [View all]PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)10. It did survive several legal challenges...
Hard to say what might have happened in future "what if" challenges.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Legal challenges
A February 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions." The report said that challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed. The ban did not make up an impermissible Bill of Attainder. It was not unconstitutionally vague. And it was not incompatible with the Ninth Amendment.
Challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.
In evaluating challenges to the ban under the Commerce Clause, the court first evaluated Congress' authority to regulate under the clause, and second analyzed the ban's prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. The court held that "it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce." It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus.'"
The law was also challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. It was argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. The reviewing court held that it was "entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes." It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon "potentially more dangerous," and were not "commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting."
The federal assault weapons ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment. Since its expiration in 2004 there has been debate on how it would fare in light of cases decided in following years, especially District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
A February 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions." The report said that challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed. The ban did not make up an impermissible Bill of Attainder. It was not unconstitutionally vague. And it was not incompatible with the Ninth Amendment.
Challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.
In evaluating challenges to the ban under the Commerce Clause, the court first evaluated Congress' authority to regulate under the clause, and second analyzed the ban's prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. The court held that "it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce." It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus.'"
The law was also challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. It was argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. The reviewing court held that it was "entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes." It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon "potentially more dangerous," and were not "commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting."
The federal assault weapons ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment. Since its expiration in 2004 there has been debate on how it would fare in light of cases decided in following years, especially District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
121 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What happens when you ban a specific model of weapon, the case of the TEK-9...
PoliticAverse
Jun 2016
#1
Credit where it's due. It would have at least as much impact as the petition to build a Death Star.
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#9
The Assault Weapons Ban wasn't found to be unconstitutional and it banned specific weapon models.
PoliticAverse
Jun 2016
#5
Assume a Democrat is elected and appoints a liberal replacement for Scalia. Do you think the newly
PoliticAverse
Jun 2016
#13
Indeed. As Heller was a 5-4 decision a liberal justice replacing Scalia could swing the court
PoliticAverse
Jun 2016
#14
Just signed. Even if this may be pointless, it sends a message to some in congress and the senate.
Laser102
Jun 2016
#23
At this point it would be like trying to ban human slaves from civilian ownership
IronLionZion
Jun 2016
#26
I must have misunderstood your post, I thought you were answering for yourself...
Marengo
Jun 2016
#72
No, just people who buy devices DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans relatively efficiently
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#75
I'm sure many confederates owned several slaves without mistreating any of them
IronLionZion
Jun 2016
#42
You have the ability to kill a lot of people efficiently relatively speaking though
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#70
Strawman, I said devices I could care less what they are if its designed to kill a lot of humans...
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#78
I have faith in people just not wackos, that's the difference between us... I want a high filter
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#80
I disagree with the NRA and punk ass'd legislators on that account, it''s not long or difficult ...
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#82
Strawman, didn't say they did... I said regulations... I'm correct and right on that account
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#86
Well, when everyone I know who does competition says it's crap, I'm going with that.
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#98
Bullshit amateur psychoanalysis aside, that's the elephant in the room for confiscation advocates.
Lizzie Poppet
Jun 2016
#58
Now if only we cound get someone on board for the mental help programs being proposed right now...
Matt_R
Jun 2016
#115
Yeah, there will be violent resistance ... some harsh language... obscene gestures and pictures...
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#71
What we need is a new constitutional amendment to repeal the 2A and ban all guns.
LonePirate
Jun 2016
#31
Exactly! The real problem is that people have guns. That's why gun violence rates are so high in
hughee99
Jun 2016
#96
A vague law is a bad law; it's unenforceable. Our laws rely on precision of language. But when
Brickbat
Jun 2016
#36
I see opinion and no resolve to have anything other than having an opinion. eom
Festivito
Jun 2016
#111