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

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
10. It did survive several legal challenges...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:40 AM
Jun 2016

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).
What happens when you ban a specific model of weapon, the case of the TEK-9... PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #1
Pointless. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #2
Why do you say this Ms. 81 posts? vkkv Jun 2016 #59
If 20 dead 1st graders didn't get anything done, why would a petition? NightWatcher Jun 2016 #3
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
Laws must be constutional, it doesn't matter how many people support it... pipoman Jun 2016 #4
The Assault Weapons Ban wasn't found to be unconstitutional and it banned specific weapon models. PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #5
Because it was allowed to sunset in 2004...why? pipoman Jun 2016 #6
It did survive several legal challenges... PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #10
The 80 year old SCOTUS standard is pipoman Jun 2016 #11
Assume a Democrat is elected and appoints a liberal replacement for Scalia. Do you think the newly PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #13
Yes. pipoman Jun 2016 #15
Tough call - look at the 4th circuit re:the Maryland ban. jmg257 Jun 2016 #12
Indeed. As Heller was a 5-4 decision a liberal justice replacing Scalia could swing the court PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #14
Not likely, the precedent is 80 years old pipoman Jun 2016 #22
symbolism over substance Crepuscular Jun 2016 #7
No thank you. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #8
Pointless Calista241 Jun 2016 #16
^^ All of this. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #21
I dont get this. ncjustice80 Jun 2016 #109
Not true progressives. Folks on the fence. NT pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #114
Signed, even though they already had enough signatures. liberalnarb Jun 2016 #17
thanks. I signed, and passed it along - but ellenrr Jun 2016 #18
The weapon used in Orlando wasn't actually an AR-15. NT Adrahil Jun 2016 #19
So what? HuckleB Jun 2016 #90
So, if we want effective legislation, we need... Adrahil Jun 2016 #93
So DU should be writing legislation? HuckleB Jun 2016 #99
Forgive me. I thought we were having an adult conversation... Adrahil Jun 2016 #100
No, you didn't. You were the one who played the NRA hand. HuckleB Jun 2016 #102
We've already had more than enough security theater, thanksverymuch. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #20
Just signed. Even if this may be pointless, it sends a message to some in congress and the senate. Laser102 Jun 2016 #23
Exactly. Scuba Jun 2016 #25
signed. eom LittleGirl Jun 2016 #24
At this point it would be like trying to ban human slaves from civilian ownership IronLionZion Jun 2016 #26
Anyone who owns an AR-15 desperately wants to kill someone? Marengo Jun 2016 #29
If you think someone is coming to murder you IronLionZion Jun 2016 #30
That doesn't answer the question. Yes or no, do you believe they WANT to? Marengo Jun 2016 #33
Yes IronLionZion Jun 2016 #34
Do you realize that there are DU members who own AR-15s or similar rifles? Marengo Jun 2016 #38
I'm sure law enforcement monitors online forums IronLionZion Jun 2016 #39
Another non-answer. Are YOU saying they are potential mass killers. Marengo Jun 2016 #52
Are YOU saying they are potential mass killers. Yes i am..... stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #56
I'd like to see you respond with that answer to DU members who state... Marengo Jun 2016 #63
I own an AR....... stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #68
I must have misunderstood your post, I thought you were answering for yourself... Marengo Jun 2016 #72
I own a Colt 6920 rifle Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #107
potential mass killers. stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #110
So what? Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #57
There were many law abiding responsible slave owners too IronLionZion Jun 2016 #40
You are equating owning an AR-15 to owning slaves? Marengo Jun 2016 #53
So I want to kill people? Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #105
Not desperately ... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #69
Is that the case for any gun owner? Wanting to kill? Marengo Jun 2016 #74
No, just people who buy devices DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans relatively efficiently uponit7771 Jun 2016 #75
I own several AR-15s and I am not desperate to kill anyone hack89 Jun 2016 #41
I'm sure many confederates owned several slaves without mistreating any of them IronLionZion Jun 2016 #42
The vast majority of gun owners will never hurt someone hack89 Jun 2016 #43
That 1% is what ruins things for everyone IronLionZion Jun 2016 #46
I am not worried about losing my guns nt hack89 Jun 2016 #47
People are worried about losing their lives IronLionZion Jun 2016 #48
The Democratic party has been good to gun owners hack89 Jun 2016 #49
You have the ability to kill a lot of people efficiently relatively speaking though uponit7771 Jun 2016 #70
So? hack89 Jun 2016 #73
Not with a device DESIGNED to do so though... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #76
So? hack89 Jun 2016 #77
Strawman, I said devices I could care less what they are if its designed to kill a lot of humans... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #78
That is the fundamental difference between us hack89 Jun 2016 #79
I have faith in people just not wackos, that's the difference between us... I want a high filter uponit7771 Jun 2016 #80
Good luck. hack89 Jun 2016 #81
I disagree with the NRA and punk ass'd legislators on that account, it''s not long or difficult ... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #82
Playing fast and loose with facts does not help you hack89 Jun 2016 #84
Strawman, didn't say they did... I said regulations... I'm correct and right on that account uponit7771 Jun 2016 #86
There are plenty of new laws we can pass hack89 Jun 2016 #87
And it's not a great target shooting gun, either. HuckleB Jun 2016 #92
It is the standard for high power rifle competition hack89 Jun 2016 #94
Well, when everyone I know who does competition says it's crap, I'm going with that. HuckleB Jun 2016 #98
I'm more inclined to believe the multitudes that use ARs for competition linuxman Jun 2016 #121
Then why spend money an AR-15? HuckleB Jun 2016 #91
It is the standard for high power rifle competition hack89 Jun 2016 #95
Sorry, but that's not what anybody I know says. HuckleB Jun 2016 #97
You need better informed friends hack89 Jun 2016 #104
Bullshit amateur psychoanalysis aside, that's the elephant in the room for confiscation advocates. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #58
And the bloodshed continues IronLionZion Jun 2016 #66
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
I Signed - Over 104,000 To Date scottie55 Jun 2016 #27
You get to keep it hack89 Jun 2016 #44
Pass pintobean Jun 2016 #28
What we need is a new constitutional amendment to repeal the 2A and ban all guns. LonePirate Jun 2016 #31
France, Belgium, Netherlands, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, bernie_is_truth Jun 2016 #32
But they don't have near daily mass gun murders like we have in the US. LonePirate Jun 2016 #35
So repeal the 2nd, go ahead and get started DonP Jun 2016 #54
I like the 'near daily' part bernie_is_truth Jun 2016 #113
Exactly! The real problem is that people have guns. That's why gun violence rates are so high in hughee99 Jun 2016 #96
So the fact that all "mass shooters" had mental health problems is a-ok. Matt_R Jun 2016 #116
A vague law is a bad law; it's unenforceable. Our laws rely on precision of language. But when Brickbat Jun 2016 #36
The petition (I assume) was not intended to be a legal draft. Scuba Jun 2016 #50
Banning is not: well regulated. Festivito Jun 2016 #37
"Flick says he saw some grizzly bears near Pulaski's candy store!" MisterP Jun 2016 #67
Cute? Obtuse? Obfuscation? Redirection? Cathartic? Or, Festivito Jun 2016 #89
hidden agenda? I'm pretty damn open about being anti-semiautomatic MisterP Jun 2016 #108
I see opinion and no resolve to have anything other than having an opinion. eom Festivito Jun 2016 #111
signed! MisterP Jun 2016 #112
Nah. Waste of time and effort. Bonx Jun 2016 #45
Yes. We look quite foolish to the rest of the civilized world. ErikJ Jun 2016 #51
Goodbye AR-15... JohnnyRingo Jun 2016 #55
The problem with that idea is that it wouldn't have stopped the massacre... spin Jun 2016 #60
This bolt-action rifle owner says 'IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME OBAMA!" vkkv Jun 2016 #61
"F" as in "Fudd"? ;) jmg257 Jun 2016 #64
OK, yes, that is funny! ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #120
Fascinating how many poster miss the point that this is to raise awareness in DC, not serve ... Scuba Jun 2016 #62
Would police officers also be considered "civilian ownership"? Glassunion Jun 2016 #65
Done. marybourg Jun 2016 #83
I won't be signing it. n/t Waldorf Jun 2016 #85
Signed. ananda Jun 2016 #88
Congress would need to do this. NRA pays them too much Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #101
Signed. 125,000 signatures now. n/t livetohike Jun 2016 #103
No. greytdemocrat Jun 2016 #106
So the next day Armalite markets the "BS-16" Recursion Jun 2016 #117
It worked in 1994, why not again? ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #118
I'm still convinced the AWB was an idea planted by gunmakers (nt) Recursion Jun 2016 #119
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»White House Petition: Ba...»Reply #10