"Assault Weapons" Ban & UBC in U.S. Senate

shacklefordbanks · Aug 9, 2019

Trump is only backing expanded background checks to "keep guns away from crazy people." It's smart politics. He took banning anything off the table in his press meeting today. He's doing us a favor by moving the spotlight off banning/confiscating. We should get behind this with safeguards for due process.

The alternative looks far, far worse.

Art3 · Aug 9, 2019

This really sounds like Larry Hogan all over again. :sad20:

(only this time, the plan B of moving to PA is futile)

If only we could have had Republican control of both houses as well as the White House...then it would put the grabbers on the defensive for once. :rolleyes:

fidelity · Aug 9, 2019

PowPow said:
So much for Mitch:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...sault-weapons-ban-front-and-center-in-senate/

As this percolates out, if McConnell and Trump don't explicitly rule out a new AWB, watch the mini buying panic become real.

GrimReaper said:
Didn't the supreme court rule that something thats in common use cannot be banned? I believe I read somewhere that there are around 80 million "assault weapons" in the US

Although the Clinton assault weapons ban lasted only ten years, I don't recall successful challenges to it. Don't know how far lower court challenges proceeded.

We often cite the common use argument from Scalia used in Heller, but it's a different court, and it's not simply a handgun ban in DC. I don't think a new nationwide ban would be overturned quickly. It's implementation might get stalled, but if both the House and Senate move it forward and the President signs, the SC might not have 5 that will say it's unconstitutional.

In truth, I can see an AWB successfully fillibustered if it has the votes, with Mitch not using the nuclear option (which the Democrats, if they control the Senate in the future, might). However, not as certain about a nationwide red flag law with some money put toward better accounting of those unstable in society or making threats (enhanced NICS reporting).

ComeGet · Aug 9, 2019

shacklefordbanks said:
Trump is only backing expanded background checks to "keep guns away from crazy people." It's smart politics. He took banning anything off the table in his press meeting today. He's doing us a favor by moving the spotlight off banning/confiscating. We should get behind this with safeguards for due process.

The alternative looks far, far worse.

Or Trump and Republicans could grow a spine and point out that red flag laws have had no effect in the states where they've been enacted and UBC would not have done anything to prevent any of the recent mass shootings.

How about they pivot the conversation away from taking away the rights of you and me and to the mental health and social issues that are actually causing mainly young men to feel so desperate and isolated that they have no choices left in life?

swamplynx · Aug 9, 2019

shacklefordbanks said:
Trump is only backing expanded background checks to "keep guns away from crazy people." It's smart politics. He took banning anything off the table in his press meeting today. He's doing us a favor by moving the spotlight off banning/confiscating. We should get behind this with safeguards for due process, and national carry reciprocity, national transport and magazine size preemption, and removing suppressors from the NFA .

The alternative looks far, far worse.

FIFY. Isn't this supposed to be a "compromise?"

RepublicOfFranklin · Aug 9, 2019

No compromises ever. The DNC have yet to honor a single deal they’ve ever made making bi-partisanship a laughable pipe dream.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JPG · Aug 9, 2019

Need to wait out the outrage. It will pass just like the removal of all those statues. That was the “in thing” a few months ago. Now no one interested in those that are still standing

teratos · Aug 9, 2019

ToolAA said:
Judicial appointments are the main reason I support Trump and will likely continue to support him in 2020.

I’m with you there.

jcutonilli said:
The Supreme Court has not ruled on "assault weapons". They have found that arms in common use are protected. The problem is that many lower courts have found that even if they are protected, the laws banning them meet the intermediate scrutiny standard and are found constitutional. DC, MD, NY, CT, MA, Highland Park are all examples places with laws that the lower court has found constitutional. The Supreme Court has not taken any of these cases (The MA case is currently going through the cert process)

Hopefully SCOTUS will find strict scrutiny needs to be applied to the 2A.

swamplynx · Aug 9, 2019

RepublicOfFranklin said:
No compromises ever. The DNC have yet to honor a single deal they’ve ever made making bi-partisanship a laughable pipe dream.

Agree, that they don't honor shit, and you would be an idiot to agree to a pass these infringements now, and we'll give you something later, a la Reagan immigration fix.

But for every UBC bill they put forward, we should be attaching national carry and other amendments that work for us. Will they pass? No. We all know the dems are only about infringements, care nothing about compromise, or actually solving any problems. But it changes the narrative from "obstructionist republicans," if we just bury bad bills, to "we wanted to pass comprehensive reforms that would both keep guns out of the hands of bad guys and crazy people [not that UBCs actually would], and also protect the rights of law abiding highly vetted gun owners, but the dems blocked us."

Muleskinner · Aug 9, 2019

No way it will ever get the 60 votes required..it will however get every dem vote and the ones representing pro 2A States will lose votes

lazarus · Aug 10, 2019

teratos said:
I wonder how the Courts would see it. Also whether pro-gun States would nullify it.

UBC I think would be problematic. Isn’t that the federal government mucking in intrastate commerce? I thought that was partly why GCA only touched on FFLs and Interstate commerce.

Of course NFA mucks with intrastate commerce, but it’s as much a tax law as anything and courts have sided that taxing is fine by the feds. That’s what the Hughes amendment is anyway, it just prohibits the ATF from issuing tax stamps to MGs made after 1986. It doesn’t actually make them illegal. You just can’t legally pay the tax.

Anyway, no clue if federal UBC would withstand scrutiny, especially constitutional questions of the feds mucking with internal state commerce. If they crafted the bill to force states hands on passing their own UBC...

Not that I want them to do that, but a bill crafted like the alcohol/DUI and under age drinking bills would be just fine legally (I’d think. And if anything it would resulting state laws facing judicial scrutiny). Basically feds say no highway $ for you if you don’t pass a law with these requirements in it.

LeadSled1 · Aug 10, 2019

My concern is the left potus candidates are so far left Republicans would not vote for them no matter what the Republican politicians do before the election. But the R politicians can draw in more moderate Democrats to vote R in the general by passing gun control efforts.

They can lose some of the base and still pull in moderate Dems to win the election.

Not saying this will happen, but it is a concern to keep an eye on.

delaware_export · Aug 10, 2019

I am not a lawyer... that’s outta the way.

Some recent rulings and cases bear on what you note. Not saying you’re incorrect, just noting the hypocrisy of .gov

Feds make gaming and pot illegal, for years. .scotus says the gaming law was interference with state and tosses, and states do it. Feds also sit by while states spit in their eye for pot laws.

So the case recently about states nullifying .fed laws for NFa stuff, was it Kansas?missouri? Where they made local suppressors. .feds jumped all over that. Just like gaming the state allowed so it should be good, right? The suppressors were sold locally; not interstate commerce.

Or Obama care being ruled invalid after enforcement of the tax provision merely is not being enforced.

There is also a case now pending that the refusal to let someone the NFa tax on a new FA Is a violation. That’s a fairly new case as I understand it. Let’s see how that goes.

And cutting off money to something, several SJW Judges saying federal funds can not be cut off to force adoption of .fed rules/laws. Ie immigration. It’d be interesting to see the same SJW judges get a case trying to same tactic for .feds forcing gun laws. We’d get to find exactly where in the constitution/bor/any other law the but but but it’s guns clause exists.

Again, just observing the hypocrisy of .gov from a non lawyers view point. For better or worse, I wish the cases moved faster. Hawaii vs young is going on 8 years?

lazarus said:
UBC I think would be problematic. Isn’t that the federal government mucking in intrastate commerce? I thought that was partly why GCA only touched on FFLs and Interstate commerce.

Of course NFA mucks with intrastate commerce, but it’s as much a tax law as anything and courts have sided that taxing is fine by the feds. That’s what the Hughes amendment is anyway, it just prohibits the ATF from issuing tax stamps to MGs made after 1986. It doesn’t actually make them illegal. You just can’t legally pay the tax.

Anyway, no clue if federal UBC would withstand scrutiny, especially constitutional questions of the feds mucking with internal state commerce. If they crafted the bill to force states hands on passing their own UBC...

Not that I want them to do that, but a bill crafted like the alcohol/DUI and under age drinking bills would be just fine legally (I’d think. And if anything it would resulting state laws facing judicial scrutiny). Basically feds say no highway $ for you if you don’t pass a law with these requirements in it.

press1280 · Aug 10, 2019

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:
The Republicans might ask for that and the Democrats will compromise by flat out refusing and then the GOP will say "OK...we tried". Then they'll roll over and we won't even have the opportunity to get butter.

That's compromise by DC standards.

The key may be to have UBC AND reciprocity in the underlying bill. That way 60 votes are needed to amend anything IN or OUT of the bill. If we start with just a UBC bill and try to add on reciprocity it'll fail by 1 or 2 votes and the GOP will be blamed for killing the bill.
If they're hell bent on UBCs then open NICS to private citizens or allow exemptions for CCWs. But we know the Dems will oppose it so everyone has to go through an FFL and pay an extra 20-140 dollars per transfer depending on where you live.

danb · Aug 10, 2019

LeadSled1 said:
My concern is the left potus candidates are so far left Republicans would not vote for them no matter what the Republican politicians do before the election. But the R politicians can draw in more moderate Democrats to vote R in the general by passing gun control efforts.

They can lose some of the base and still pull in moderate Dems to win the election.

Not saying this will happen, but it is a concern to keep an eye on.

Actually, this is exactly what is happening. This happens many election cycles. One or the other party goes too far, and the other side fills the gap. Activists determine primary candidate outcomes, but activists are rarely vote for the electable candidate. Electable, moderate candidates (like say Hickenlooper or S Bullock) are boring, and they poll very low in the primary. Crazy, attention seeking candidates who generate activist enthusiasm (Sanders, Warren) poll high but lose the general. Biden is somewhat of an exception, but he's running on name recognition only. He has too many senior moments on the trail to win.

Republicans need to win back the suburbs, and with the left going full bore socialist, they see an opportunity to pull in some moderates.

jcutonilli · Aug 10, 2019

teratos said:
Hopefully SCOTUS will find strict scrutiny needs to be applied to the 2A.

I don't see them adopting strict scrutiny and I am not sure it would likely do any good. While all most all laws fail strict scrutiny, there are a few that do meet the requirements. Korematsu is one case where the court applied strict scrutiny and found the law constitutional. It did not matter that only a few people may be the problem. The government said there was a problem and the courts are willing to defer to their judgment in situations like this. While Koremastu in itself is no longer precedent, the argument itself continues in most of the 2a cases. I am not aware any lawyer has pointed this out in court.

"Assault Weapons" Ban & UBC in U.S. Senate

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Eqinsu Ocha

piled higher and deeper

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics