Even if they passed the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (which expired in 2004), the current Supreme Court would not allow it. They’ve made that clear in ruling after ruling since 2008.
“(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”
and further:
“(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
Because that was decided against Washington D.C. and not an actual state, there was a 2nd ruling making it clear that this applies to states as well:
““the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]”
2016 had my favorite ruling in all this because it wouldn’t INITIALLY seem to deal with guns. A woman bought a taser to protect herself from an abusive ex. MA ruled the 2nd amendment didn’t apply because tasers didn’t exist when the 2nd amendment was written.
“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”.[6] The term “bearable arms” was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]
The most recent is the New York ruling where you needed special permission from the state to get a concealed carry permit, which was often denied, even if you were a law abiding gun owner.
“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”[28]
Where this ruling is especially different is that it sets the grounds for striking down other, in place, gun laws all over the country:
"When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “‘unqualified command.’”
Ironically, similar to what the Black Panthers did, if you protest while openly carrying firearm weapons and make threats to politicians, you can essentially encourage Republicans to vote in favor of gun control.
This is exactly what started the anti gun movement in California; white racists didn’t want blacks to own guns and voted to restrict firearm ownership, and now you can see the fruits of California’s racist gun control laws today.
They asked for a solution to the “gun problem”, and there is one that works.
Leverage the racism of MAGA and republican white people against themselves. They are all stupid enough to vote against their own interests to fuck over minorities.
I’m telling you, this is the only way to get the ball rolling. You cannot ever within your lifetime or even in ten lifetimes get a Constitutional Convention for EVERY. SINGLE. STATE. to all unanimously agree to get rid of the Second Amendment.
You will be long dead and ten generations of your relatives and descendants will grow old and die before anything close to controlling the gun ownership problem will ever be addressed.
If you think you have hope it will happen in your lifetime, you are fucking delusional. Otherwise follow my suggestion and you can have your way in mayyybe 50 years.
What are the reasons why fully automatic rifles are banned? Or granades? Or nuclear weapons if we go to the extreme. Reading that I can’t see where you can put a line a say “this is no bereable anymore”
So nukes, missiles, bombs, etc. aren’t bearable weapons, so they don’t qualify in that regard. Grenades are explosive destructive devices, so even though they’re bearable, they’re banned on the often forgotten side of ATF-E everyone forgets the “E”. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Automatic rifles are a different deal. Regulated as a result of the old timey gang wars in 1934. I say “regulated” rather than banned because they aren’t banned. If you’re willing to jump through the paperwork hoops and pay the (REALLY HIGH!) fees, you CAN own a fully automatic weapon. Just expect to pay $30,000 or more to do it.
Even if they passed the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (which expired in 2004), the current Supreme Court would not allow it. They’ve made that clear in ruling after ruling since 2008.
Rulings in question:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
“(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”
and further:
“(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
Because that was decided against Washington D.C. and not an actual state, there was a 2nd ruling making it clear that this applies to states as well:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
““the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]”
2016 had my favorite ruling in all this because it wouldn’t INITIALLY seem to deal with guns. A woman bought a taser to protect herself from an abusive ex. MA ruled the 2nd amendment didn’t apply because tasers didn’t exist when the 2nd amendment was written.
Enter the Supreme Court:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”.[6] The term “bearable arms” was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]
The most recent is the New York ruling where you needed special permission from the state to get a concealed carry permit, which was often denied, even if you were a law abiding gun owner.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen
“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”[28]
Where this ruling is especially different is that it sets the grounds for striking down other, in place, gun laws all over the country:
"When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “‘unqualified command.’”
The US is fucked up
Continue to do nothing by complaining online. That will truly fix this problem.
What do we do, oh knower of all things?
Ironically, similar to what the Black Panthers did, if you protest while openly carrying firearm weapons and make threats to politicians, you can essentially encourage Republicans to vote in favor of gun control.
This is exactly what started the anti gun movement in California; white racists didn’t want blacks to own guns and voted to restrict firearm ownership, and now you can see the fruits of California’s racist gun control laws today.
How’d that work out for the black Panthers again?
They asked for a solution to the “gun problem”, and there is one that works.
Leverage the racism of MAGA and republican white people against themselves. They are all stupid enough to vote against their own interests to fuck over minorities.
Boom, no more guns.
But wait! We still have a gun problem even though the black Panthers had guns and solved the gun problem! And racism!
Grow up. The only thing we haven’t tried is getting rid of the guns because THAT WOULD FIX THE FUCKING PROBLEM!
I’m telling you, this is the only way to get the ball rolling. You cannot ever within your lifetime or even in ten lifetimes get a Constitutional Convention for EVERY. SINGLE. STATE. to all unanimously agree to get rid of the Second Amendment.
You will be long dead and ten generations of your relatives and descendants will grow old and die before anything close to controlling the gun ownership problem will ever be addressed.
If you think you have hope it will happen in your lifetime, you are fucking delusional. Otherwise follow my suggestion and you can have your way in mayyybe 50 years.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, this would and has actually worked.
What are the reasons why fully automatic rifles are banned? Or granades? Or nuclear weapons if we go to the extreme. Reading that I can’t see where you can put a line a say “this is no bereable anymore”
So nukes, missiles, bombs, etc. aren’t bearable weapons, so they don’t qualify in that regard. Grenades are explosive destructive devices, so even though they’re bearable, they’re banned on the often forgotten side of ATF-E everyone forgets the “E”. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Automatic rifles are a different deal. Regulated as a result of the old timey gang wars in 1934. I say “regulated” rather than banned because they aren’t banned. If you’re willing to jump through the paperwork hoops and pay the (REALLY HIGH!) fees, you CAN own a fully automatic weapon. Just expect to pay $30,000 or more to do it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
A few years later (1939), short barrelled shotguns were also regulated in a similar fashion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
Of course NOW you can get a “Non NFA item” that’s effectively a short barrelled shotgun without being a shortbarrelled shotgun:
https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-Mossberg-shockwave-be-legal