Oregon Supreme Court orders changes to ballot title for initiative to ban 'assault weapons'

[Headkicktoleg]

a lot of liberals don't even realize AR15s are semi-automatic not automatic.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Is the SCOTUS not offering clarity on what the 2nd means, what individual states can do, or both?

Both really. Up until 2008 they'd only taken one 2A case and that was in 1934. There they ruled the feds could infringe on gun rights via taxation, after a century and a half of the 2nd being clearly understood to prohibit that. Interestingly enough, only the government showed up to argue their side.

Recently they said the 2nd applies to the states, which is consistent with incorporating the other Amendments. They also said lawful self-defense was a right and that commonly held weapons were protected. But then clouded the issue by saying of course that some restrictions were allowed, but not outlining them very well. Since then they've refused to take cases where state and local bans on semi-auto rifles have taken place.

There's just no honest way to read the 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Constitution and conclude the federal government has the authority to limit the effectiveness of firearms available to the people by banning certain types and models. Same as there's no way you can read it and conclude the feds can ban words they deem particularly dangerous.

 

[Quipling]

I don't get it. How can a state ban something that is protected in the constitution?

Scalia's opinion in Heller takes the position that states have some ability to ban some firearms, but their ability to regulate is limited by the individual right to self defense provided by the second amendment. There are obviously people who believe the second goes further than that - or those who believe it doesn't go as far - but that's the current state of the law, and is why states believe they can make these regulations.

Sometimes Scotus strikes down those regulations as going too far, sometimes it doesn't. Last year it declined to hear challenges to two state regulations - one open-carry ban, and one "assault rifle" ban.

 

[Quequeg]

You have to have a brain and a conscience to feel remorse.

 

[My Spot]

Scalia's opinion in Heller takes the position that states have some ability to ban some firearms, but their ability to regulate is limited by the individual right to self defense provided by the second amendment. There are obviously people who believe the second goes further than that - or those who believe it doesn't go as far - but that's the current state of the law, and is why states believe they can make these regulations.

Sometimes Scotus strikes down those regulations as going too far, sometimes it doesn't. Last year it declined to hear challenges to two state regulations - one open-carry ban, and one "assault rifle" ban.

Wasn't the argument in both Heller and McDonald that it was unconstitutional to ban a commonly held firearm?