03-06-2018, 07:36 PM
(03-06-2018, 07:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(03-06-2018, 12:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: A new bill has been introduced in the House called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, H.R. 5087.
The above is in its face unconstitutional in that it clearly infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. It would ban stuff one has a right to own and carry. It could achieve the unintended consequence of advancing the Standard Model. Such a law would face a certain challenge in the courts at a time when Trump has been appointing judges to deliberately set a new balance. It is a risky maneuver.
I would count on the descriptions far more than the model numbers. More so, I would not attempt to legislate contested values. It is not free if part of the country attempts to impose upon another.
It's a great bill, but no I'm not holding my breath that it can pass a congress even more reactionary and ignorant than the reactionary Scalia Court that ruled Heller.
It is clearly constitutional, as there are limits to any right, and a limit on types of guns people can own and carry already exists. I agree about the model numbers, as I said, but it doesn't hurt to have both the numbers and the descriptions. The bill does not have the speed standard I suggested, and I am not sure if "military style" is well-enough defined to avoid controversy (well, as if anything about this issue could avoid controversy)
The poll brower posted said there was substantial support for a ban on assault rifles, but only a tie on a ban of semi-automatic rifles. I still don't really get the difference. The proposed bill imposes a ban on semi-automatics that can fire more than 10 rounds, or use a magazine that provides more than 10 rounds. That seems reasonable to me, and may be what they mean by "military style" or what people mean by "assault rifle." What we don't want are weapons that some nut can take to a school or office or wherever and shoot down 50 or 100 people in 2 or 3 minutes without having to stop to load ammunition, as the AR-15 can do.
Again, this is not a values question, as the same value is involved on both sides. I don't know what part of that you didn't get. I agree that the rural areas think they have more genuine uses for guns, but that only means I would compromise on regular guns, since people think that way in these times. People in rural areas don't need "assault" or "military style" weapons, any more than urban people do.