Yes if you read the Dc vs Heller decision than yes but an assault weapons ban would be not be legal under than decision because the decision was that common use weapons are protected the AR-15 is the most popular rifle sold in the USA it also protects its magazine the AR-15 leaves the factory with a STANDARD 30 round magazine
I find it funny now anti gunners are trying to Use the DC vs Heller decision to try to help there argument because none of the anti gun arguments make any sense i doubt most of them have even read the entire decision and how the court came that conclusion
they came to the conclusion using the founders own writings and the US vs Miller decision (1939) where the federal governments own argument was that the only weapons the 2nd amendment protected to individuals are military style weapons in common use like an infantry mans rifle or pistol in case they needed to be called up for emergency defense also know as the unorganized militia which is every man eligible for the draft that’s not in the national guard or armed forces
The Supreme Court has recently ruled that some reasonable restrictions are allowed, but that bans by firearms type is unconstitutional.
An AWB that went too far, banning- not restricting by firearm type, possibly would be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Absolutely. In DC vs Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that people have the right to own a gun for personal protection under the Second Amendment, but they also made clear that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and that the government may impose reasonable regulations to restrict the kinds of guns people may own, and where they may carry those arms.
The Constitution is clear, as to gun ownership, but the Court has ruled that some reasonable restrictions may be enforced.
There are over 20,000 gun laws, so why not enforce some of those laws?
Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the country but their violent crime is out of control, so making new laws is not the answer.
I am very sorry to annoy conservatives out there, but the actual right granted by the Constitution is very vague… regulations that do not prevent you to own some guns and to be capable of carrying them are constituionnally valid. Courts tend to support most of these measures, bearing exceptions.
What the anti-gun lobby simply doesn’t understand is that, at least in regards to the U.S., the genie is out of the bottle.
The only method by which any serious ban could be implemented would (and damn well should) send shockwaves through the citizenry.
if you’re talking about a total ban..
Even IF the Supreme Court wiped their butt with the Constitution, there are 320,000,000 firearms in the USA.
Good luck trying to get them.
Yes. The court clearly said that the second amendment is not an absolute. Gun ownership can still be subject to state and federal regulations.
Extreme gun control is for idiots
after the gun ban in the UK and Australia, Crime went up over 40%
Say NO to Gun Control
to appreciate what they meant via “A nicely regulated protection tension …”, you need to understand the eighteenth century concept of “protection tension” All men have been component to the protection tension, and have been predicted to supply their very own hands. as nicely their military function, in addition they acted as regulation enforcement at a time while there have been no prepared police forces. lots of those purposes have been taken over via government businesses interior the resultant 2 centuries. however the reason of permitting all voters to be armed replaced into clean. the only significant distinction between unfastened individuals, and unfree or semi-unfastened ecu peasants replaced into the potential to “shop and undergo hands” In maximum ecu international locations at that factor possessing weapons replaced into denied to the peasants. as a consequence that they had no genuine thank you to oppose government tyranny. The framers of the invoice of Rights have been nicely responsive to this while they wrote the 2nd modification.It replaced into regardless of each and every little thing their “keeping and bearing hands” that allowed them to start the revolution. present day claims that the protection tension, rather of it is eighteenth century meaning of all able bodied voters, potential in basic terms government controlled reserve gadgets of the army, misses the factor that it replaced into possession of hands exterior of government administration that replaced into the objective of the modification.