The banning of guns altogether will be unconstitutional

Print This Article Image source: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The banning of guns altogether will be unconstitutional

Dozens of companies in the U. There are as many as 9 million AR-style weapons in the U. A handful of states or cities, citing mass killings in recent years by individuals armed with an assault weapon, have passed laws to flatly ban the possession of such guns. The scope of the Second Amendment as it applies to such guns is definitely not settled.

The Connecticut case, Shew v. Malloy, reached the Supreme Court in February in an appeal by four residents and two organizations, after the U.

The banning of guns altogether will be unconstitutional

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the ban, finding it did not violate the Second Amendment. The appeal in that case is scheduled to be considered by the Justices at their private Conference on Thursday, less than a week after the nightclub massacre in Orlando.

The Justices surely are aware of the Orlando incident, but will attempt to put that out of their minds as they examine the issue.

Recent Opinions

The state of Maryland also passed such a ban following the Newtown shooting, and that statute has been under review by the U. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Maryland law flatly outlaws owning an assault-weapon and bullet magazines holding more than 10 rounds. State officials in Maryland had persuaded the full bench of that appeals court to take up the issue after a three-judge panel had ruled.

The banning of guns altogether will be unconstitutional

Those other courts have used a lower constitutional standard and upheld bans on assault-weapons and, in some of the cases, high-capacity magazines, too. In another of those decisions, the U. A local resident who owned that type of weapon and magazine took his Second Amendment challenge to the Supreme Court, but the Justices refused last December to hear his case.

That left the ordinance intact. That has been taken by some observers as an indication that Thomas may say something more broadly about the scope of the Second Amendment when the court decides that case -- Voisine v. United States -- between now and the end of June.

Because the Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning in December for turning aside the Highland Park case, its denial did not create any new precedent on assault-weapon laws that would apply outside of the area of the Seventh Circuit Court.

That denial, though, has only enhanced the visibility of the new cases reaching, or on their way to, the Supreme Court. As assault weapons cases are examined in lower courts, here are the key issues that have been coming up regularly none of which has yet been answered by the Supreme Court: First, do assault-weapons and high-volume magazines get any protection under the Second Amendment, or are they outside of it in the same way that a military machine gun would be?

Second, is such a flat ban unconstitutional when the weapon involved is highly popular, and thus is recognized as one that is in common use — one of the factors that the Supreme Court has said should be considered? Third, is such a flat ban always unconstitutional because it allows no exceptions, and thus puts such a commonly used weapon completely out of the hands of even trustworthy, law-abiding citizens?

Fourth, is the fact that the weapon is very much like the one that the military has traditionally used on the battlefield the M an indication that it should not be allowed for the general public — that is, is it too dangerous?

Fifth, if the Second Amendment does provide some protection for private possession of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, how rigorous should the constitutional test be?

It is apparent that the issue is one that will continue to arise in lower courts, although there is no certainty that the Justices will step in to provide answers to those questions.Okay, this question is a bit silly and makes the pro-gun side look bad. Yes, the vast majority of anti-gun people in this country are aware that the 2nd Amendment stands opposed to a general ban on guns.

On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center's constitutional literacy adviser, looks at the latest legal developments related to assault weapons bans, including one case to be considered by the Supreme Court at its private Conference on Thursday.

And yes, banning all forms of guns would be unconstitutional. As said before, please, if you don't want to vote of constitutionality, don't. Different people read it differently. Ban all guns!

I think that banning guns would make my community safer because then the criminals would have to turn them in and the gangsters would have nothing to . Perhaps banning semi-automatic guns will reduce mass-shootings in the United States. Of course, that would be a massive undertaking that would result in civil war, so I'm content that it won't happen.

Banning Guns Is Unconstitutional -