In the wake of the Newtown, CT shooting, the nation has been hearing many propositions to ban "assault rifles". A common misconception is that these "assault rifles" are machine guns. Many times these firearms are also referred to as "military style firearms", however, in the context of assault weapons laws, they refer to cosmetic features of semi-automatic firearms that are similar to fully automatic military firearms. Fully automatic firearms on the other hand are not classified as an assault weapon by law, but are classified as a Title II weapons.
A semi-automatic firearm is classified as an assault rifle if it has a detachable magazine, and two other specified characteristics. These "military style" characteristics include:
A semi-automatic firearm is classified as an assault rifle if it has a detachable magazine, and two other specified characteristics. These "military style" characteristics include:
Collapsible Stock
Pistol Grip
Bayonet Lug
Grenade Launcher
Flash Supressor
Not An Assault Rifle
Not An Assault Rifle
Assault Rifle
California Senator, Diane Feinstein, who supports the assault rifle ban was quoted as, "They are designed to kill large numbers of people". Out of the three firearms above only one is an assault rifle, however, they all fire the same type of ammunition, all have detachable magazines and magazine capacity, and they all have the same power and potential, as she puts it, to "kill large numbers of people". The assault rifle ban is nothing more then emotionally based legislation piggybacking on the tragic shooting in Newtown.
Much of the public isn't even aware that assault rifles were already banned once before in 1994, by a bill introduced by Diane Feinstein. It banned assault rifles for 10 years until 2004. For those 10 years it was illegal to manufacture these weapons for private citizens. It also banned high capacity magazines to no more than 10 rounds. In 2004, the National Research Council did studies of the assault weapon ban, and stated that it "did not reveal any clear impact on gun violence" and "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...". The United States Department of Justice and National Institute of Justice even found that if the ban were to be renewed, that it's effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, due to the fact that rifles in general, including "assault rifles", were rarely used in gun crimes.
The newly proposed assault rifle bill, however, does not include an expiration, and many who oppose the bill feel as it is only the first push, in even further gun control laws to follow. Many claim that the ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional, and violates the 2nd Amendment. Which states, "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."
To determine the original intent of the 2nd amendment we must understand at minimal, some history leading up to it.The Stuart period in England, was the most influential period of English history, shaping the political theory of American revolutionary leaders. In 1628, Parliament enumerated King Charles' violations of the rights of his subjects. These included forced loans, imprisonment without process, and execution of persons pursuant to martial law.King Charles dissolved and refused to call new Parliaments for 11 years. He began developing his own army, and advised subjects of England that bearing arms against the King would result in damnation. Scotland went into an open rebellion, which forced Charles to call Parliament in 1640 for the purposes of raising taxes. Seizing the opportunity, Parliament secured power of dissolving and eliminating the Kings prerogative courts. Parliament also moved to seize control of the militia, the king refused, and parliament appointed its own officers to take charge of the militia by passing the bill the king had refused to sign as an ordinance. Parliament called out the militia and the king did the same, and civil war ensued. Charles attempted to disarm many militia units by confiscating public magazines and seizing weapons of residents. Parliaments forces prevailed and Charles was executed in 1642.
There are two main points to take away from this time period. Both Parliament and the King had proclaimed themselves the protector of the subjects of England. Each had also tried to disarm the others supporters. The militia, the organization that intended to protect it's subjects liberty, had also become an instrument of government tyranny. Parliament, by appointing officers of the militia and selecting its membership showed how the militia could become an instrument of the government.
There is often debate over, if it's the states right, or the individual's right to form a well regulated militia. In the states' right model, the militia is the national guard, and the citizens right's are much more limited. My position is that it is the individual's right. Under the current system, officers of the national guard are dual status, meaning they are member's of the state guard and federal armed forces. They are armed, paid, and trained by the federal government. We see the implications of this in the paragraph above. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, provides that "no state shall, without the consent of congress, ...keep troops, or Ships of war in time of peace...". In a state militia model, where the national guard is the militia, these points alone severely limit the "militias" ability to act as a proper counterweight to the federal government, which was not the envisioning of the founding fathers.
English history made it clear that, force of arms was the only way to effectively check government powers, and standing armies threatened liberty. Therefore, the power had to be placed in the hands of the citizens. These ideals were adopted by the framers of our nation, who knew that a check on all government, not just federal government, had to be a well armed population, the militia. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the Governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Pistol Grip
Bayonet Lug
Grenade Launcher
Flash Supressor
Not An Assault Rifle
Not An Assault Rifle
Assault Rifle
California Senator, Diane Feinstein, who supports the assault rifle ban was quoted as, "They are designed to kill large numbers of people". Out of the three firearms above only one is an assault rifle, however, they all fire the same type of ammunition, all have detachable magazines and magazine capacity, and they all have the same power and potential, as she puts it, to "kill large numbers of people". The assault rifle ban is nothing more then emotionally based legislation piggybacking on the tragic shooting in Newtown.
Much of the public isn't even aware that assault rifles were already banned once before in 1994, by a bill introduced by Diane Feinstein. It banned assault rifles for 10 years until 2004. For those 10 years it was illegal to manufacture these weapons for private citizens. It also banned high capacity magazines to no more than 10 rounds. In 2004, the National Research Council did studies of the assault weapon ban, and stated that it "did not reveal any clear impact on gun violence" and "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...". The United States Department of Justice and National Institute of Justice even found that if the ban were to be renewed, that it's effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, due to the fact that rifles in general, including "assault rifles", were rarely used in gun crimes.
The newly proposed assault rifle bill, however, does not include an expiration, and many who oppose the bill feel as it is only the first push, in even further gun control laws to follow. Many claim that the ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional, and violates the 2nd Amendment. Which states, "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."
To determine the original intent of the 2nd amendment we must understand at minimal, some history leading up to it.The Stuart period in England, was the most influential period of English history, shaping the political theory of American revolutionary leaders. In 1628, Parliament enumerated King Charles' violations of the rights of his subjects. These included forced loans, imprisonment without process, and execution of persons pursuant to martial law.King Charles dissolved and refused to call new Parliaments for 11 years. He began developing his own army, and advised subjects of England that bearing arms against the King would result in damnation. Scotland went into an open rebellion, which forced Charles to call Parliament in 1640 for the purposes of raising taxes. Seizing the opportunity, Parliament secured power of dissolving and eliminating the Kings prerogative courts. Parliament also moved to seize control of the militia, the king refused, and parliament appointed its own officers to take charge of the militia by passing the bill the king had refused to sign as an ordinance. Parliament called out the militia and the king did the same, and civil war ensued. Charles attempted to disarm many militia units by confiscating public magazines and seizing weapons of residents. Parliaments forces prevailed and Charles was executed in 1642.
There are two main points to take away from this time period. Both Parliament and the King had proclaimed themselves the protector of the subjects of England. Each had also tried to disarm the others supporters. The militia, the organization that intended to protect it's subjects liberty, had also become an instrument of government tyranny. Parliament, by appointing officers of the militia and selecting its membership showed how the militia could become an instrument of the government.
There is often debate over, if it's the states right, or the individual's right to form a well regulated militia. In the states' right model, the militia is the national guard, and the citizens right's are much more limited. My position is that it is the individual's right. Under the current system, officers of the national guard are dual status, meaning they are member's of the state guard and federal armed forces. They are armed, paid, and trained by the federal government. We see the implications of this in the paragraph above. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, provides that "no state shall, without the consent of congress, ...keep troops, or Ships of war in time of peace...". In a state militia model, where the national guard is the militia, these points alone severely limit the "militias" ability to act as a proper counterweight to the federal government, which was not the envisioning of the founding fathers.
English history made it clear that, force of arms was the only way to effectively check government powers, and standing armies threatened liberty. Therefore, the power had to be placed in the hands of the citizens. These ideals were adopted by the framers of our nation, who knew that a check on all government, not just federal government, had to be a well armed population, the militia. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the Governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
No comments:
Post a Comment