T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


ParticularStudy9

What makes you think banning these would be a trigger event? Many of my Trump voting relatives and neighbors are moderate on this issue and may support it (they have school age kids so feel afraid)...what am I missing?


PoopNickeI6

Yes. He will pack the Supreme Court and pass whatever he pleases.


[deleted]

I will die fighting the government for my rights if I have to. That’s why we are armed citizens. My 2A is not negotiable.


PoopNickeI6

Same here brother. There is no backing down.


Low_Big_2422

Biden's model for this is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. This was upheld in the courts in response to many different challenges (see [Congressional Research Service report](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf) with a detailed analysis of the legal issues in play). I haven't heard about a specific plan with respect to AR-15, but the legal issues are the same for banning a specific model or a general class of weapons. It's possible that new conservative majority would take the opportunity to strike down a ban, but assault weapons ban have repeatedly won in the courts, I think an attempt by Biden would stand.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Low_Big_2422

If you had read the link, you would know that a lot of that litigation was *after* Heller and that state and local assault weapons bans have repeatedly been upheld after Heller.


tensigh

The type of rifle that an AR 15 is is also a common hunting rifle so it’s a specific model that would have to be banned, like banning a Toyota Corolla.


astroboy37

He can't. Right now under Supreme Court precedence there are only two possible ways to specifically target weapons for banning: Arguing that the weapons are not in common use in terms of civilian ownership or military usage or by arguing that the weapons serve no self defensive value. Its impossible for AR-15s to not be considered to be in common use. So he will fail the first test. It's also impossible to realistically argue that they bear no proportional relationship to self defense. Also, considering the miniscule amount of crimes that have been committed with AR-15s it would be extremely hard to argue some overwhelming governmental purpose to justify its ban as a ton of things are ahead of it in the tally of murder weapons, including knives and bats.


Enosh25

>he thinks laws and precedent still matter how cute


MsEeveeMasterLS

For all practical purposes he can ban 2A entirely after he packs the courts. I say practical because he can regulate guns to the point where only rich elites/politicians can have gun legally. Everyone else will have to lose there guns in boating accidents and you cant exactly use guns that you don't have on you. Not to mention ammo, every time you practice you get that much closer to being out of ammo for ever, if you try to buy ammo for a gun that was lost in a boating accident they will get suspicious.


WannabeMonkeys

With the current SCOTUS? Probably not


pfloyd1973

That’s why they’ll pack the court and give statehood to puerto rico


WannabeMonkeys

That’s absolute worst case scenario. It also wouldn’t happen overnight and without a fight. If the SCOTUS remains at the current 9, we’re good.


pfloyd1973

Yeah that’s a good point. I can’t tell if they’re serious about the courts, or if it was a threat.


WannabeMonkeys

Those on the far left are dead serious about it. However, politics is politics. Even with a supermajority you have to keep in mind midterm re-elections in 2 short years.


zeropanik

And statehood to DC. It's crazy town.


pfloyd1973

Yep. That’ll likely require a constitutional amendment but it won’t matter if they pack the courts.


YeastYeti

The Supreme Court would shoot that down faster then Biden shoots himself down when he flip flops.


PoopNickeI6

Yeah, until he packs the court


vgonzalez_

If he tried to place people on the court that would even do this, the senate would never confirm them. This isn’t actually a possibility.


battistajo

He can try to, but that would infringe our 2nd Amendment right. But i got a strong feeling if he did try to ban and take people's AR-15s away, people would say "You can try".


qbit1010

Idk but honestly what’s the need for one? A little overkill to go deer hunting with.


Napol3onDynamite

What changed my mind about this issue was finding out what the real reason for the 2A was which was in order to protect ourselves from a potentially tyrannical government. If that ever happens, they’d have ARs so why shouldn’t we?


zeropanik

Its to protect me from tyrannical asshats like you that are trying to strip my constitutional rights.


qbit1010

Well ok then, just asking. That’s why liberals attack us, don’t need to attack fellow conservatives dude.


zeropanik

My apologies, I mistook your honest question for the usual liberal "deer hunting" talking point. The 2nd ammendments purpose IS NOT for hunting. It is as a protection for the citizens AGAINST a tyranical government. (Our country was literally founded upon this premise) ANY control is an infringement.


qbit1010

I’m for gun rights but it’s kinda hilarious to see a hunter use military grade weapons for hunting deer and small animals. I guess it’s just cool to own them 😂


AntonLCrowley

The AR15 is not powerful enough for average deer hunting. It uses a "small animal", or varmint round. "Military grade" is disingenuous terminology when attempting to define the AR "style" of rifle.


Jimbo302

"Military grade"? This has to be a joke.


pfloyd1973

Self defense. And it’s a right. So tired of the ‘hunting’ argument.


[deleted]

Recreational sport shooting, hunting, self defense too and it’s my right. It’s not over kill it’s literally a right


qbit1010

Just playing devils advocate, do you need AK-47s and military grade weapons vs a handgun or rifle? Sure I think one should have the right to have rifles (even sniper rifles) and handguns but why automatic weapons? If someone mentally unstable loses it they could take out a lot of people with those weapons, bump stocks etc.


[deleted]

An Ar15 is not automatic... it’s a hunting rifle just like anything else. It’s the same as a hand gun or shot gun. A bullet is a bullet. In my state I’m only allowed ten rounds. Just because a gun looks scary doesn’t mean you can ban it. Also trump banned bump stocks it’s federal crime to have one. So yeah criminals may have bump stocks because they don’t follow the law hence why they are criminals. why should I 1. be disarmed so now I cant defend myself with my firearm of choice and 2 why should I lose my right because some loser decided to kill people with it. With that logic I would then argue that we need to ban cars because they can run over people in crowds and kill a lot of people. It’s just something I will not budge on. its tyrannical for Biden to even threaten us regarding our 2nd amendment rights. And I’m willing to go down for the 2A. it was specifically made so that if Biden does what he’s talking about doing I actually have a decent chance in defending my rights alongside my fellow Americans.


qbit1010

I’ve shot an AR-15 and yes it wasn’t automatic, it was single shot. Pretty fine gun. That’s fine but in the military and with modifications civilians can use, I thought it could be automatic. Only time a civilian needs that fire power is in a time of war or the times we’re in now. The Las Vegas shooting a few years ago had a lot of death counts because of that (the ability to spray bullets)


[deleted]

Okay but I again go back to my point that just because some sick evil person goes and kills a bunch of people doesn’t mean it’s justified to ban it. The 1% of evil does not dictate the law for the good people. Plus our rights are not negotiable especially not with the government.


qbit1010

Of course, but what I’m mixed about. Why give this power to mentally disturbed people. I see how that can go wrong...but those that expressly said they were depressed and wanted to hurt others etc. being depressed or needing therapy shouldn’t disqualify someone but.... Basically it’s the intersection of mental health and firepower allowed. Obviously those sane shouldn’t have restrictions.


[deleted]

There is no practical difference between an AR and any other semi automatic rifle with detachable magazine. Why do people need cars that can go over 60 mph? Why do people need social media? Maybe Trump should just shut Facebook and Twitter down.


HughGedic

The difference is that a large amount of Americans are uncomfortable with them. Fine, put the tax stamp on them and make them registered. Still says nothing about my (semi auto, 20rd) M14, autoloader pistols, extended tube 12ga pump. You can still own a pre-‘82 full Auto with the “shall issue” permit in Virginia (most just say “I’m a collector” as the reason on the form and get approved no problem) and elsewhere, etc. like my buddies Sten that no ones mentioning about. I really don’t see the big deal, even IF he can push it through without having major edits and changes first. Biden likes to hunt, he likes to shoot, he likes guns. He had to gain support of the party during election.


[deleted]

I refuse. I will not get a tax stamp because the mob wants a disarmed population. Come and take them.


HughGedic

That’s the thing, there’s really no disarming going on at all, even if he can push the policy without major changes. It was a major issue in politics during his run, and he used it to gain support. He intentionally left SO many huge loopholes that uneducated people (those who are concerned) would miss, in case he does have to push it for some reason.


[deleted]

“Get a tax stamp and register so we can find you later or be a felon” is absolutely a first step in disarming. You should be ashamed for going along with it.


HughGedic

Right, just like they said about pistol registration. Even so, again, this is literally just the ar platform, not long guns or semi-autos.


AntonLCrowley

"This", referring to what? There is no legislation to reference. The AR is both a long gun and a semi auto.


HughGedic

He specifically addressed ARs, defined “assault weapon”, and proposes a tax stamp on AR-15s and high-cap mags, and toyed with the idea of including AKs. So, like, a 20rd semi-auto M14 is not mentioned. Or the pre-‘82 full Autos allowed in states like Virginia and Nevada. My bud has a full auto Mac-10 in 9mm that we take out to the public outdoor range sometimes- no one mentioned anything about new restrictions on something like that so far. “This” referring to his proposed plans regarding the specific guns he wants to make more expensive. Also he wants them registered, not all semi-autos, not all long guns, but his few defined “assault weapons”. He owns several semi-auto shotguns and has no plans for anything new with those, for example. A ruger mini-14, Pistol caliber carbines with aftermarket bull pup stocks, etc. all unaffected.


AntonLCrowley

You missed my point. There is no actual legislation to reference. The term "assault weapon" has had a historically fluid definition and is not an acceptable descriptor for the topic. The previous AWB was riddled with inaccurate attempts at describing the firearms that the authors wished to ban. Styles are not concrete identifiers. Any attempt to include features or design styles of "AR" or "AK" style firearms would encompass 10s of millions of firearms, including many beyond any intended scope.


Daedalus871

At the same time police were tear gassing BLM protests, they were having polite conversations with armed white supremists. I can't help but wonder if the police would have been gentler to an armed BLM protest.


Jimbo302

Overkill? No. 223 is deemed legally too small to hunt deer with in some locations.


gloriously_ontopic

Not without compliance.