@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:oralloy wrote:The matter most under discussion at the moment is a ban on harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and adjustable stocks.
What would be the public's compelling interest in preventing a rifle from having a pistol grip?
On reflection, it's not about the pistol grip, it's about the weapon being semi-automatic. I just read
Wikipedia's summary of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994--2004). It tells me you withheld some key information about the definition of "assault weapons": The ban specifically applied to
semi-automatic weapons with the cosmetic features you listed. On guns you re-cock manually, you can have all the cosmetics you want.
The fact that they only ban harmless cosmetic features on "certain weapons" does not change that they are only banning harmless cosmetic features.
And it still does not provide any compelling public interest in banning those harmless cosmetic features.
Thomas wrote:Hence, it seems that the US government could make your concerns (and BillRM's) go away simply by banning all semi-automatic weapons. Removing the need to reload most certainly increases a shooter's threat to public safety, justifying a government interest in prohibition. So, would a blanket ban on all semi-automatic weapons make you happier constitution-wise? If not, how would a ban on all semi-automatics not be narrowly tailored to uphold public safety?
Focusing on a substantive issue would solve the problem raised by focusing on cosmetic features. But it does not automatically mean there is a compelling reason to ban something.
The only situation where there has been a problem with people pulling the trigger "as fast as they can" on a semi-auto, has been drive-by shootings using handguns.
Banning all handguns that can fire each time the trigger is pulled (presumably also including double-action revolvers) would make handguns useless for self defense, which is pretty draconian considering that we're dealing with a right to carry handguns for self defense.
Limiting the damage done in drive-by shootings could be done by just limiting magazine size alone, which would still allow handguns to have utility in self defense.
Long guns only seem to be a problem in shooting sprees. Here, the speed of a semi-auto is much less useful to the perpetrator. Pump and lever actions are nearly as fast in aimed fire (and more than fast enough to suit the purposes of a spree killer).
And any ban on semi-autos, pumps, and lever actions together, would do away with any long gun useful for self defense.
Just as with the drive-by issue with handguns above, the problem could be solved by just limiting ammo capacity (although in the case of a spree killer, that would only be truly effective if there were also limits on their speed of reload).
So, any ban on handguns that can fire with each trigger pull, would
not be narrowly tailored. It would do away with handguns useful for self defense, even though limiting ammo capacity would solve the same problem without doing away with handguns useful for self defense.
Any ban on semi-auto rifles would
fail to be justified by a compelling public interest, because it would do nothing to diminish spree killings so long as killers also could get pumps or lever actions.
And any ban on semi-auto, pump, and lever action rifles combined, would
not be narrowly tailored, because that would eliminate self defense long guns, while limits on ammo capacity would achieve the same effect without eliminating self defense long guns.
Now, if we had just been talking of a stand-alone limit on magazine size, that would be a lot harder to argue against on a Constitutional basis.
But luckily for me, the Enemy does not care about limiting magazine size. The only thing they really care about is banning pistol grips.
So the Enemy are going to waste every bit of their energy trying to ban pistol grips, even though the NRA will prevent Congress from passing that. And then, when all their energy has been uselessly expended flailing away at the NRA over pistol grips, the Supreme Court will come along and strike down whatever state and local assault weapons bans happen to be in existence.
End result: we're back to normal. (Although if the Enemy is willing to compromise with the NRA, they will be allowed to pass expanded background checks.)
