Sotomayor, et al: Assault weapons are "commonly available semi-automatic rifles".

I believe the rightwing extremist who tried to shoot up those kids in that Knoxville church also used a shotgun. Thankfully, while 7 were injured, the 2 who died I believe were adults. One of whom charged him to protect the kids.

 

The rifle under discussion is an AR15.
An 'assault weapon'.
Commonly available.

 

Yes, AR15

"He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles"

Where did she say "assault weapon"?

Where is the disconnect? Can you not see, you worded the thread title differently? It's not a big deal, but what's the point in denying it?

 

Just imagine if he knew what he was doing.

 

You know she was talking about AR15s.
You know AR15s are 'assault weapons'.
Where is the disconnect?

 

See red in my post you replied to.

Not in my opinion, but thanks for sharing your take on it

I think its your inability to comprehend what people say

 

He knew what he was doing. He was just tackled by church members before he could continue.

 

^^
Unfathomable irony.

 

The argument being, apparently, that "assault weapon" wannabees are unnecessary. As long as the illustrated firearms are available, rights to be armed are preserved.

 

It seems straightforward to me. An assault weapon is a weapon used to attack a person or group of people. It could be an AR 15 or a pistol or a crowbar or an automobile. The AR15 is a rifle that can be used as an assault weapon but has other uses as well just like a crowbar or automobile.

I think people like to massage obvious meanings to create fear or support political ideology. Just understand English words. Assault=attack. Weapon=tool used to attack. Pretty simple.

 

Obviously he didn't, if he only scored two kills and allowed himself to get tackled.

 

Heller was based on revisionist history, and on that fact, should be reversed.

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/why-heller-is-such-bad-history

it is... bad history to declare that such a ruling was a return to the “original understanding” of the amendment. And it is especially bad history to claim that the protection of an individual right was the primary reason for the Second Amendment’s inclusion in the Bill of Rights.

This is the hypocrisy of 'originalism'. Republicans will use 'originalism' when it supports their predetermined conclusions, but will ignore it when it doesn't.

The articles points to many historical facts which underscore the overriding point that the second amendment's primary reason for existence was the preservation of the state (as in government controlled) militias because they were required for slave patrols and general policing, and for fear of being subsumed into a standing army, which they viewed, at that time, as a threat to state sovereignty. All the arguments rendered at the constitutional ratification convention spoke very little, if at all, about 'the individual right to bear arms'. Nothing in Madison's notes even mentions it.

https://origins.osu.edu/article/second-amendment-goes-court
Ironically, the originalist arguments in favor of an individual rights view of the Second Amendment are probably the intellectually weakest arguments to support this position. One could make a much stronger and intellectually more interesting argument in support of an individual rights view if one adopted a living constitution argument.

 

Well, the simple solution is to, by judicial decree, declare that ALL semi auto rifles are 'assault' rifles, and
make single shot bolt action rifles and shotguns the only legal rifles for non police/military citizens, and then
this argument is over.

They could, if they wanted to, but they won't, of course. You know, the NRA is a big conservative donor, etc.

From a strictly textualist perspective, the Constitution itself does not explicitly prohibit or allow the banning of fully automatic and semi-automatic rifles. Any interpretation beyond the text would require considering historical context, intent, and subsequent legal interpretations, which are outside the scope of a purely textualist approach.

And, as far as 'originalism', forget it, all they had in 1787 were muskets, flintlock and flintlock rifles/pistols and blunderbusses for militia men and anything they used are now antique and collectible category.

 

not even the dissent bought into the bullshit "collective rights" nonsense that the gun banners push

citing Saul Cornell is something you should realize is worthless to anyone who actually understands the intent of the founders. Cornell is well known as a paid whore of the gun banning foundations and he is pretty much a joke among actual legal scholars. The other guy is some minor league nobody

 

where your argument fails is that not only is this wrong since those weapons are arms, you also miss the main point-NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION from a STRICTLY TEXTUALIST PERSPECTIVE empowers the federal government to ban any arm

 

Quantify this.
What USSC holdings did Heller overturn?

 

This does not change the fact liberals / leftists do -not- know an 'assault weapon' when they see one.
But, to your point:
What rational, reasoned argument is there for the position that 'assault weapons' are not included in the 'arms" protected by the 2nd?

See above:
What rational, reasoned argument is there for the position that semi/full auto rifles are not included in the 'arms" protected by the 2nd?

The court discarded your argument 2 decades ago. Keep up.

 

Where your argument fails is that your premise is absurd the Constitution cannot possibly spell out everything that the Supreme Court must do or not do for hundreds of years in the future so totally a bogus argument.

Your argument misses a crucial point from the get-go. The Constitution, while it doesn't spell out the banning of arms, grants Congress the power to enact necessary and proper laws through the Necessary and Proper Clause. This isn't some minor detail—it's a fundamental part of how our government operates. Congress can and does regulate firearms under this clause, end of story.

Then there's the Commerce Clause, another pillar that you conveniently ignore. This clause empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, a foundation for numerous federal regulations, including those on firearms. To say the federal government can't touch arms is not just wrong; it's willfully blind to how our legal system works.

And let's talk about the Second Amendment. Yes, it protects the right to keep and bear arms, but even the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller made it clear that this right isn't without limits. The Court recognized that reasonable regulations are permissible. Ignoring these judicial interpretations is not textualism—it's fantasy.

Finally, you fail to grasp the distinction between federal and state powers. The Constitution doesn't explicitly ban federal regulation of arms, leaving room for legislative action. States have their own regulatory powers, but that doesn't mean the federal government is powerless. In fact, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause give it all the authority it needs. And don't give me any BS about FDR and the Commerce Clause-- the NFA has been upheld.

So let's cut through the nonsense: from a truly textualist perspective, the Constitution supports federal regulation of arms, including automatic weapons. Pretending otherwise is not just a misinterpretation—it's a deliberate distortion.

 

Well let's take a look with Justice Stevens among the dissenters actually wrote

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to the widespread fear that the new national government would destroy the state militias through the exercise of its new-found powers under the Constitution. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

Moreover you're incessant trafficking in cheap shot descriptors betrays your credibility.
******************
Saul Cornell is a highly respected historian and legal scholar specializing in American constitutional thought, particularly the Second Amendment. He holds the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University and has previously been a professor at Ohio State University. Cornell earned his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania and has authored significant works such as "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America" and "The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828."

His expertise is recognized widely, with his works being cited by legal scholars and courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. He has also contributed to numerous amicus briefs in key Second Amendment cases. Additionally, Cornell is a strong advocate for using new media to teach history and co-authored the textbook "Visions of America," which employs visual materials to highlight competing historical visions in the U.S. [[❞]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Cornell) [[❞]](https://www.fordham.edu/academics/departments/history/faculty/saul-cornell/) [[❞]](https://fedsoc.org/contributors/saul-cornell) [[❞]](https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/cornell-saul) [[❞]](https://origins.osu.edu/author/saul-cornell?language_content_entity=en).

 

You show your ignorance

https://www.minnpost.com/environmen...-year-mining-moratorium-in-watershed-of-bwca/

https://smallcaps.com.au/biden-creates-national-monument-arizona-bans-new-mining/

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/19/biden-oil-mining-alaska-restrictions-00153219

 

So want all guns gone

 

Um.....3 links about mining.....?

 

Nor do they care. Making law on the basis of a one off event that would have been far worse if the shooter had opted to use one of his aircraft instead of any rifles at all.

 

The conservative Court in Heller discarded my argument rather recently in terms of Supreme Court years and again only by 5-4 party line vote which means it's not a very strong precedent. A liberal court will definitely reverse Heller.

An assault rifle is whatever the court says it is --I say it's all semi-automatic rifles.

Since Heller is founded on revisionist history Heller will eventually be reversed then there will be no individual right to bear arms.

I can live with an individual right to bear arms with only a guarantee of a couple of handguns and a couple of bolt action single shot rifles and or a shotgun.

 

he's a paid whore of anti gun foundations. He is cited by other anti gun "scholars"
SPEAKING OF NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

where is there any CITATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVING ANY POWER TO REGULATE PRIVATE ARMS? Stevens pretends the second amendment was only about a militia right (yet he authored an article saying the second should be CHANGED) but what he never explains is WTF did the founders give the government any power? I already explained that-he assumed that the founders SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE NEW GOVERNMENT THAT POWER and thus he ASSUMED IT EXISTED

he gets thrashed on that

tell me what does this last paragraph of his dissent in HELLER MEAN?
the Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.