The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Colorado U.S. District Court issues TRO against magazine and gun ban
Ruling against town of Superior's law is the first post-Bruen decision on arms bans
Today U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore issued a temporary restraining order against the ban on so-called "assault weapons" recently enacted by the town of Superior, Colorado, in Boulder County. The case is Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Superior.
Lead attorney for the plaintiffs was Barry Arrington, one of Colorado's top lawyers on education law, and now the victor in a major Second Amendment case. Arrington previously served in the Colorado House of Representatives, and as a trustee of the Independence Institute, where I work.
Judge Moore formerly was a corporate lawyer (Davis, Graham and Stubbs, Denver), and then head Federal Public Defender for Colo. and Wyoming. He was appointed to the bench by President Obama in 2013, and confirmed unanimously.
Like several other towns in Boulder County, Superior recently outlawed semiautomatic centerfire rifles that have at least one supposedly bad characteristic, such as an adjustable stock; various semiautomatic shotguns; various semiautomatic handguns; and magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds.
It was obvious that such arms are "commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," which is the Supreme Court's rule from District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) for which arms are protected by the Second Amendment. First, the Colorado Attorney General and plaintiffs in an earlier case challenging the state of Colorado's ban on magazines over 15 rounds had so stipulated. Colorado Outfitters Ass'n v. Hickenlooper, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1068 (D. Colo. 2014), vacated in part on other grounds and remanded, 823 F.3d 537 (10th Cir. 2016). (I represented 55 Colorado Sheriff plaintiffs in the case, which ended up with the 10th Circuit declaring that neither the Sheriffs nor the many other individual and organizational plaintiffs had standing.) Commonality was also found in the undisputed facts set forth in Fourth Circuit Judge Traxler's dissenting opinion in Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 153-55 (4th Cir. 2017). The opinions of many other Circuit Courts provide additional, irrefutable proof of commonality; the banned firearms number in the millions, at least, and the banned magazines comprise over half of all magazines.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court's recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, courts are supposed to decide Second Amendment cases on text, history, and tradition. Judge may not decide based on their own opinions about good policy, nor should they defer to legislative policy judgements. The policy balancing was already conducted by the American people when they adopted the Second Amendment.
In Bruen's historical approach, the most important periods are the Founding Era and Reconstruction (when the Fourteenth Amendment made the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments). English history is relevant to the extent that is shows an unbroken tradition that was adopted in America and continued to the Founding. Colonial history is also relevant. So is 19th century history, and (Reconstruction excepted), the earlier the better. The late 19th century is weaker, and the 20th century is far too late to show a historical tradition that could override the text of the Second Amendment.
Judge Moore wrote: "the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual's home or in public."
To be precise, there are a few precedents pre-1900, but none are valid any longer.
After incidents in which armed black people deterred lynch mobs, Florida in 1893 enacted a license requirement an exorbitant bond to carry or possess a "Winchester rifle or other repeating rifle." Fla. Laws 1893, ch. 4147, §1. In a 1941, a Florida Supreme Court Justice explained that the statute was enacted to control black laborers:
The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied…. [T]here has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and nonenforceable if contested.
Watson v. Stone, 4 So. 2d 700, 703 (1941) (Buford, J., concurring) (agreeing with majority holding that the statute does not apply to automobile carry).
Once "redeemed" white racist governments regained control over Tennessee and Arkansas after the end of Reconstruction, they banned concealable handguns, and the bans were upheld by state courts. State v. Wilburn, 66 Tenn. (7 Bax.) 57 (1872); Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455 (1876). Given that Bruen affirms the right to carry a concealed handgun, these precedents are invalid.
The controlling case law of Bruen being clear, and the exercise of a constitutional right being suppressed, the appropriateness of a TRO was plain.
The Colorado plaintiffs also challenged Superior's ban on open carry of handguns. Judge Moore denied the TRO motion against the open carry ban. As he accurately stated, Bruen affirms the right to bear arms, but also allows governments to decide whether the mode of carry shall be open or concealed. Since 2003 in Colorado, concealed carry permits have been available to adults with safety training who pass a fingerprint-based background check. A system that bans open carry while allowing concealed carry does not violate the Second Amendment.
After Bruen, the Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded California and New Jersey cases on the confiscation of magazines over 10 rounds. Also GVR'd was a case about Maryland's ban on common rifles. Additionally, new cases on similar bans have been filed in a variety of jurisdictions.
The Superior case is the first one to result in a judicial opinion, and could be persuasive, albeit not binding, precedent in cases nationwide.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Works of satan, indeed
Wot! You calling for Daivd?
The data are in. The cause of global warming is clean air. Clean air does not reflect sunlight back. Thank the scumbag lawyer profession for this catastrophic consequence of their dumbass regulations.
“In a 1941, a Florida Supreme Court Justice explained that the statute was enacted to control black laborers:”
Progressive Dems = KKK. Nothing has changed.
Victims should take responsibility to end victimization. The cause of aggression, of oppression, of tyranny is simple, weakness. They should defend themselves.
Does Kopel do exorcisms?
I can readily envision Kopel opening meetings of the Volokh Conspirators:
“The power of Christ compels us!
The power of Christ compels us!”
Reverend Arthur/Jerry Sandusky has gone
10 YEARS, 1 MONTH, 14 DAYS
without buggering any young men,
*as far as we know, https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
C’mon Jerry, compel with Christ for a change….
“A system that bans open carry while allowing concealed carry does not violate the Second Amendment.”
But any system that requires permits to exercise your rights guaranteed by the constitution is unconstitutional.
Or at least very questionable — and subject to strict scrutiny and:
1. be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
2. be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
3. be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest
I don’t see how firearms permitting meets any of those requirements, let alone all of them.
the 1A been rolling with permits for ages.
Permits for running a press? For speaking in public? For petitioning for redress of grievances? For exercising religion? Pray tell!
Some people like to equate the fact that you need a permit to block streets or exclusively occupy parks with requiring permits for speech itself.
It’s dishonest and deceptive, but it’s depressingly common.
It *is* permit for speech. Access to public spaces is an integral part of that speech, and needs to be managed.
And of course anyone who disagrees with your simplistic view secretly agrees with you but is being deceptive.
A great way to turn your ignorance into a matter of pride; not a great way to experience life as more than an endless stream of righteous anger though.
Good job proving Toranth right. You can speak in a park, street, sidewalk, etc. without a permit. You need a permit to monopolize the space for a certain period of time. Sometimes I wonder if people are exhibiting lack of honesty or lack of intelligence. But I know you are intelligent.
For protests the disruptive monopoly is a vital part of the speech.
Thus, some pretty important speech is regulated on a shall-issue basis, and has been for ages.
Don’t call be stupid or a liar until you do some work to understand what I’m saying.
Sarcastr0
July.23.2022 at 3:57 pm
“Don’t call be stupid or a liar until you do some work to understand what I’m saying.”
Harvey did not call you stupid – he said your argument was dishonest – which you confirmed was an accurate statement
It’s entirely practical to protest something without blocking others’ access to, or use of, pubic space.
At least for people who are not totalitarian leftists.
“For protests the disruptive monopoly is a vital part of the speech.”
God, that’s stupid. For left-wingers, sure, being “disruptive” is a vital part of protest. Heck, setting things on fire and looting stores, too, apparently.
But that just illustrates that “protest” DNE “speech”.
Don’t call be stupid or a liar
A counter offer: Stop being a stupid, lying sack of shit.
You just doubled down on that which you told me not to call you. Speech doesn’t equal protest. Some protests involve speech. Not all speech involves protest. You don’t need permits for marching through a park, writing a letter to a politician or other government official, writing or publishing a newspaper, buying an ad on TV, picketing, walking through a neighborhood, going to a city council or school board meeting, posting on social media, kneeling during the national anthem, and a ton of other speech activities. What you do need a permit for is something that monopolizes public streets, parks, and other resources. A parade. A rally that takes over a whole park. But even then I don’t think protesters who block streets, bridges, etc. take the time to get a permit.
Just “accessing” public spaces for speech doesn’t generally need a permit. What needs a permit is exclusively accessing public spaces to the detriment of others. In my city the biggest park has a nice open pavilion with a roof and some bbq grills. If you want the exclusive use of that space for any reason (party, protest, rally, political speech, whatever) you have to reserve it. You can’t just show up and claim it. This isn’t about the speech, party, etc. It is about excluding other users. That should always require a permit no matter the intended use. And any official denying the permit for the content of the speech needs to be held liable for damages.
Also, I specifically said you’re not stupid.
“It *is* permit for speech. Access to public spaces is an integral part of that speech, and needs to be managed.”
Sure. And if some group wants to conduct a parade with firearms or something, you could require a parade permit as well.
But no regulation requires a permit merely to speak in public.
If a permit was required for speech, it would be required anywhere that speech was made.
Instead, people are required to get permits for activities that take control of specific locations, regardless of the speech to be made there.
And your insistence on conflating the two is still both deceptive and dishonest, but at least you are consistent in your behavior.
Or even *whether* there’s speech to be made there. If you want to hold a 5K run on public streets, you’re going to need a permit for that, even though it isn’t speech. If you want to hold an farmer’s market style event where a bunch of pro bono lawyers set up booths in the street, it wouldn’t violate the 5th Amendment to require a permit.
I meant the 6th, although my above statement is still technically true.
Technically true is the best kind of true.
Permits to protest or rally
Gun ownership is not really analogous to owning a printing press.
Well in the course of history I’d say the printing press or shall we say the press in general and who it is controlled by, is as dangerous if not more than gun ownership. A good press can lead to the slaughter of millions, look no further back in history to Mao’s use of the university and the controlled press, for the many Maoist atrocities. And of late a US press that has deemed itself as the ‘truth’ and the pain and suffering they are causing.
So BLM and Antifa and the January 6 people had permits? Not the same thing. Not even close. Speech would have bee without the permit in your example. The permit is for the place.
A lot of the Floyd protests were permitted, yeah.
Antifa sucks, but also Antifa protests aren’t a thing.
Jan 06 was also permitted, just not the whole break into the Capitol and hunt for Congresspeople part.
Civil disobedience is speech, but it is also illegal but definition.
Sarcastr0
July.23.2022 at 3:57 pm
“Don’t call be stupid or a liar until you do some work to understand what I’m saying.”
Harvey did not call you stupid – he said your argument was dishonest – which you confirmed was an accurate statement
Owning a gun is even less analogous to holding a rally in public space.
The only reason governments are allowed to require permits for those are because those activities are rivalrous uses of public space. The government cannot require permits for protests or rallies held exclusively on private property (with the owner’s consent).
Don’t be naiive. There is a pretty strong social reason for checking out who gets a gun.
A shall issue permitting regime balances equities in a pretty common sense way.
Sure, but the fact that permits are required to occupy public spaces doesn’t translate automatically to a good argument for rights to keep or bear arms, except for the case of doing so as part of militia activities in public spaces. 1A-tangential permits are inapposite to the usual 2A case.
And there’s a pretty strong social reason for telling the government to bugger off, too: That the government almost always leverages that “checking out” to infringe the right.
re: “There is a pretty strong social reason for checking out who gets a gun.”
There is an equally strong social reason for checking out who gets a printing press (or other access to mass media). Totalitarian governments make exactly that argument all the time. It’s just as wrong as your argument.
You are right about that. At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights there weren’t nearly as many private printing presses as there were guns.
“the 1A been rolling with permits for ages.”
With a lot of constraints. A law the required a permit merely to speak in public would clearly unconstitutional, so your analogy cuts against requiring a permit merely to carry outside the home.
Maybe permits could be required for some sort of large scale shooting exercise or something.
My point is broader – some rights are regulated by permitting.
I do think a shall issue policy for gun permits is not a bad idea, but I agree that the reasons are quite different than for speech.
The 1A rights aren’t the subject of the permit, though — it’s the rivalrous occupation of public space that is being regulated. To me, that is incidental to the speech, rather than integral (as you claim).
I tend toward absolutism in regards to the Bill of Rights but I’m not totally against a shall issue permit system either as long as the government bears all the costs. Training, fingerprinting, background checks, etc. all have a cost. In California the initial cost to the applicant is somewhere around five hundred dollars plus several months or more. That doesn’t include any loss of wages if you have to take time off work for any of the above. Since the beneficiary of all of that bureaucracy is the people, not the applicant, why should the people absorb the cost? The Constitution says I have the right to bear arms. Why should I have to pay for permission to do so?
A criminal defendant doesn’t have to pay for the jury. Someone attending a council meeting doesn’t have to pay admission. You don’t have to pay to register to vote or to vote. California even charges to process the background check every time you buy a gun. Why is it okay to pay for some rights but not others?
Also the CCW permit process has to be repeated every two years at a cost of about 300 dollars.
Funny, the quote I read was:
“Bruen affirms the right to bear arms, but also allows governments to decide whether the mode of carry shall be open or concealed”
I’m pretty much a second amendment absolutist, mainly because I’m a constitutional absolutist, but I think registration is constitutional. The main reason I think its constitutional is Article 1 gives Congress responsibility for arming the militia, and its hard to fulfill that responsibility without knowing how well the militia is already armed.
However its not to hard under current doctrine to come to the conclusion that states don’t have that power, the courts could find a “dormant militia clause”, because Congress has banned a federal gun registry it would follow that allowing the states to move into Congress’ area of authority needs congressional approval.
Seriously?
Well despite the tendency of people to read out of the constitution the parts they like, or read in the parts they think should be there, I think you have to take it as it is.
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Since the unorganized militia is all able bodied me, and probably women too, and Congress has the authority to organize them, I think a gun registry would be considered a reasonable organizational step.
I’m glad Congress has not taken that step, and I would oppose legislation to do so, but I think it’s constitutional.
Is cataloging arms that are acquired for private purposes really part of organizing or arming the unorganized militia?
Maybe that argument could be made for specific arms that are significant for military purposes, but I’m not sure it works in the general case.
So you believe registering every gun, every gun owner, and every gun transaction is constitutional? I’m not really sure you understand what absolutist means.
PeteRR, the constitutional call is for a well-regulated militia—a clause not yet actually expunged from the Constitution. Registration fulfills a critical militia purpose, enabling efficient planning, training, and deployment under joint federal and state supervision, as detailed explicitly in the constitution. Nothing in the 2A can be read as legitimately prohibiting registration.
“One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge.
“Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.”
In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.”
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
Lathrop has been told that before. He just doesn’t know how to read English or do history.
“Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined, . . . . There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.”
Precisely. How does that diverge from, “enabling efficient planning, training, and deployment?” I used the term advisedly, in its 18th century context, with which I am as familiar as Rakove.
However, your conclusion, “. . . it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty,” is not justified under the Constitution. The Constitution stipulates in Article 1 a power for congress: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
In short, Congress has power to discipline the militia according to its judgment. Nothing there to forbid an obviously useful registry listing what arms are available among the various militias which might be called into federal service. Or, indeed, to prohibit a national survey of private arms, to ascertain the full extent of the nation’s civilian population to either act in defense of the nation, or perhaps to fail after a call to action, for want of ammunition, for instance. As it happened, an occurrence like that loomed large at the outset of the revolution, with a comprehensive shortage of gunpowder which came as a dismaying surprise to Washington and Hamilton.
If the authority you cite comes from Article I, why was an Amendment necessary?
No it doesn’t, because the militia you talk about is not the militia of the 2nd Amdt. What must be remembered is that the militias that met the British at Concord and Lexington in 1775 were not officially sanctioned. They may have been earlier, when used in the French and Brian wars. But by 1775, the British had taken over the government in MA, and had sent a major military expedition to those towns to seize their arms. The militias meeting the British were by then Unsanctioned. Same founders involved in the militias of 1775, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, including our first three Presidents.
I have no objection to registering any arms owned by the National Guard. But that’s as far as it goes.
Davy C, the sovereign People determined how far it goes. They decreed the 2A with a militia clause. They empowered congress to set standards for militia discipline. They created a power in congress to federalize the militia. They decreed an executive power to command the armed forces. That, plus powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause, are what determine how far it goes.
Lathrop you really should familiarize yourself with the constitution more, if you are going to comment on it, the authority of Congress to require registration of firearms has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, it’s an Article I power.
And while I do say Congress could create a firearms registry, they not only have declined to do so, they’ve also banned the bureaucracy from doing it on their own.
Kazinski, it really is hard to stay polite while taking condescension so badly misplaced. I quote my own comment:
The Constitution stipulates in Article 1 a power for congress: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
See there? Where I wrote, “The Constitution stipulates in Article 1 a power for congress?”
What would it take to make you stop assuming someone else’s ignorance or stupidity must lie behind every disagreement?
Kazinski, I concede the federal government may properly decline to create an arms registry. However, I suggest a congressional ban on letting the executive do that in fulfillment of its military powers ought to be struck down as unconstitutional under the Militia Clause. If congress authorizes the executive to federalize the militia, the executive must know what exists to be federalized.
The militia clause gives no powers to the executive, only Congress. That’s a pretty idiosyncratic take on the constitution that grant of power to the Congress somehow gives the executive an overreaching power.
“The main reason I think its constitutional is Article 1 gives Congress responsibility for arming the militia, and its hard to fulfill that responsibility without knowing how well the militia is already armed.”
But that could be satisfied by a law requiring that each adult citizen demonstrate ownership of at least one weapon suitable for militia purposes. Similar to the original Militia act.
Demanding that citizens inform the government about ALL the guns they own has a rather different and contrary purpose: Facilitating confiscation of them.
Bellmore, if we are to take federal reliance on the militia clause seriously—an open question, I concede—then information about the extent of the entire civilian arsenal is a reasonable federal requirement. Any military emergency of the sort the Constitution enumerates, but especially foreign invasion, could occasion a need for more civilian arms than militia volunteers might readily supply.
Many would-be volunteers might not have arms of their own to present with. That indeed happened during the initial stages of the Revolution. Defense against the British was badly hampered as a result, and extreme efforts were used to make up the deficiency, including even a buccaneering raid on a British arsenal in Bermuda.
As we know to be the case, civilians may stockpile private arms especially useful for national defense, such as AR-style weapons. Under the militia clause, the government has an appropriate constitutional power to find out about those. It can then plan accordingly, including plans to distribute surplus private arms among volunteers who have none.
That said, your objection to confiscation also deserves consideration on its own terms. The enumerated justifications for a militia include suppressing rebellions and insurrections. There has never been a time when thoughtful military policy makers did not consider reliance on the militia to be an equivocal policy, which includes dangers to offset its advantages. During the Revolutionary War, Washington and Hamilton led the way with concerns of that sort.
The federal power to use a militia must include power to govern it (the in-context meaning of, “well regulated,” after all), or to suppress it if necessary in case of militia members’ own rebellions. There is no legitimate right of rebellion in U.S. constitutionalism.
Romantic pro-gun advocacy to the contrary is at best a failed legacy, settled for all time by the Civil War. In political theory, popular sovereignty obviates any need for rebellion, which would amount to a paradoxical attack by the existing sovereign upon itself—a circumstance which is already recognized constitutionally—as treason.
It is perfectly consistent with Bruen to cite history only selectively to reach the legal conclusions you’d like to reach, as indeed Kopel does here.
“Given that Bruen affirms the right to carry a concealed handgun, these precedents are invalid.”
Did it? I believe the decision was that, somehow, it must be objectively allowed for citizens to exercise their right to bear arms, whether that mean concealed, openly, or some combination of both.
I do not think that it simply ruled that there is a constitutional right to concealed-carry.
Yeah, and just the next paragraph he gets it right:
“As he accurately stated, Bruen affirms the right to bear arms, but also allows governments to decide whether the mode of carry shall be open or concealed.”
Ok, one District done. Miles to go, but every journey begins with one small step. Gov. Hochul, your turn soon.
You know how to know when you are winning a culture war?
When an Obama judge gets it right the first time without being reversed and remanded.
Conservatives — vote-suppressing racists, superstitious gay-bashers, drawling xenophobes, half-educated misogynists, Islamophobic gun nuts, gullible creationists, disaffected clingers, Cruz-class backwater misfits, Eastman-endorsing white nationalists — are winning the culture war?
In modern America, not just the desolate, bigoted, dying, can’t-keep-up backwaters?
Reverend Arthur/Jerry Sandusky has gone
10 YEARS, 1 MONTH, 14 DAYS
without buggering any young men,
*as far as we know, https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.as
So Jerry, I’m sorry “Arthur”, you ever worry that one of those boys you made sniff your jock is gonna show up at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.as
and get some “Reparations”??? (Hey, I know you’re probably more into the Brothers (literally)
Bet you’ll be “Klinging” then,
How old will you be in 2043 anyway? they’re doing wonders with Penile implants….
Frank
I don’t think you’ve thought this one through yet David. The conclusory statement that open carry can be banned is not supported by the history of the right, no case from the antebellum period surrounding the ratification of the second amendment, nor from the reconstruction era, supported such a law which effectively eviscerates the right to bear all classes of firearm other than concealable handguns.
Long guns are in common use for lawful purposes. They are also not generally considered to be concealable, at least not in not way that would leave them available for immediate use for self-defense. Notably the prime justification for NFA regulation of short barreled rifles and shotguns was they are more concealable than, the then more common, unconcealable long gun.
I’ll save the litany of case law for the brief, but it’s not hard to find.
Sean Caranna, Kopel is a pathological liar who seems dedicated to restoring the Soviet Union here in the United States. Even Ayn Rand could not have conceived of something like him.
But we will soon find out in my California Open Carry lawsuit, Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al, whether or not California’s Open Carry bans survive the Bruen One-Step Test.
I just filed my 20-page supplemental brief. The state will file its supplemental brief next month.
Wrong grounds for the ban, thus easy to overturn. The right grounds would be a ban on unusually dangerous arms, defined as arms which combine these specific characteristics:
– A rifle or shotgun;
– Featuring automatic or semi-automatic operation;
– With an interchangeable magazine of any capacity;
– Chambered for center-fire ammunition capable of delivering muzzle energy in the range between 400 ft-lbs and 2,600 ft-lbs.
It would be readily provable that arms fitting that description have become both popular for mass spree killings, and unusually lethal when used that way—and hence are unusually dangerous for general civilian use.
Note that the proposed prohibition is based on combining the entire list of named features. Arms which omit any one of those features can be expected to be notably less useful for mass killings, and thus safer for civilian use.
It is the combination of features, not any one of them individually which makes the weapon unusually dangerous. Thus, rifles or shotguns which do not feature the entire combination need not be prohibited.
However, rifles which omit interchangeable magazines should be required to feature internal magazines reloadable only 1 cartridge at a time, with a limit of 5 cartridges capacity.
To be clear and forthright, I acknowledge that gun advocates have a valid point who criticize bans on rifles, because they are less often used for ordinary crime. Part of the point of a proposed rifle ban based on an especially dangerous feature combination would be to discover by experience whether changing gun characteristics does in fact notably reduce mass killings. If that proves true, it might afterwards be time to apply those lessons to pistols, and see what could be done to optimize them for civilian use, with an eye to similar improvements in the ordinary crime rate.
Note also, I count myself a pro-gun advocate, and a supporter of the 2A. I think such an AR-style rifle ban ought to be accompanied by a renewal of the public commitment to the militia clause, by making access to fully automatic military-style weapons available to enrolled members of private militias who are willing to use them as constitutionally prescribed—which means under military-style discipline as prescribed by congress. I agree with those who advocate that a citizenry trained to arms is a critical safeguard for democratic self-government.
Such guns are not “unusually dangerous”. They are “standard” and “effective”. A boatload of pistol configurations will deliver at least 400 ft-lb of muzzle energy.
Let’s imagine that I had good cause to use a firearm in self-defense or defense of others–an active shooter or armed home invader, for example. Let’s further imagine that such is precisely the sort of situation which the law allows for the use of deadly force (because of an entirely reasonable apprehension of imminent death or severe bodily harm to one’s self or others).
Under those circumstances, why would I ever want to use a “less lethal” gun? It seems to me the entire point is in having an accurate, easy-to-operate, LETHAL weapon that when properly used has the desired effect of rendering the threat a non-threat.
He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Witness the reference to “enrolled members of private militias”, which departs from the founding-era definition of “militia” and his own claims about what militia is supposedly addressed and regulated by Congress and the states.
(See the Militia Acts of 1792, 1795, 1862 and 1903.)
Merlin’s Beard — You wouldn’t ever want a less lethal gun. You would want an arm which empowered its user to utterly control whatever situation you encountered. So too would all the other gun advocates who wish to arm themselves against hypothetical contingencies.
Society, as a matter of policy, may see it otherwise. It may not think it wise for active shooters to get access to such boundless power as you want for yourself. Society, as a matter of policy, may decide all its citizens will be safer if no one gets that kind of armed dominance. Society may decide by policy that a preponderance of value to be had from defensive gun use can be had by mere deterrence—by supplying a threat of armed self-defense to avoid necessity to do any shooting at all.
Policy might judge that such benign outcomes could be overwhelmed and defeated by active shooters with access to weapons as efficiently lethal as the ones you prefer. And thus, that you yourself could be better defended by a civilian arms policy which denied you and active shooters alike the unlimited escalation of lethality which might serve any one of you optimally if only you had it, but which could degrade the safety of all of you if everyone has it.
All of those conclusions could be reached without in the least depriving you of a right to self defense with a gun. But even if that were not true, it might be reasonable for society generally to prioritize ahead of your personal safety some general level of protection from hyper-lethal firearms. Concern about your life personally, and its possible loss in a failed effort at self-protection, cannot be the sole basis for public gun policy.
The constitution does not say otherwise. In short, the loss of the lives of some good guys with guns may have to become part of the price society must pay for gun freedom. As a practical matter, it cannot be otherwise. So that makes it a question where to draw the lines. It cannot mean there can be no lines. Still less can it mean that private demands for unlimited personal firepower can become a practical standard available to all.
I recently saw a video of a householder with an AK type rifle successfully dealing with four home invaders at least one of which. Of course it did not make the MSNBC evening news.
If you think that householder’s life was an acceptable cost of your scheme, can you present any evidence that your scheme would not result in a higher body count, just no the kind that editors prefer.
We have a much lower frequency of home invasion and a higher frequency of burglary than the UK. An armed invasion has the advantage of forcing the householder to produce the valuables. Even with that burglary is favored here. Surveys of convicted burglars show they avoid the home invasion due to fear of getting shot.
Making the world safe for home invaders is a tough sell.
Problem is, gun advocates seem to have accustomed themselves to the notion that making the world attractive to active shooters is an easy sell. Given an unavoidable cost in lives to be paid for gun freedom, I will always come down on the side of letting the gun users make the payments, and keeping the others cost-free—at least to whatever extent that can be arranged.
Once again, you don’t make the rules, I’ll be keeping my AR15(s) (actually only one is a real “AR-15” your side is so far behind the times) AKS-47(s) (see previous comment) M1A(you probably don’t know what that is, it’s the Semi-Auto Version of the M-14 Gomer Pyle marched with in the Opening of “Gomer Pyle” and what the Marines in “Full Metal Jacket” trained with (and “Private Pyle” shot GSGT Hartman (and himself) with, FN-FAL, FN49, BM59, M1 Garand, SKS-56, M1 Carbine,
and that’s not counting my (legal) “real” Assault Weapons…
Frank “Gun Nut”
Stephen only supports the civil rights that he approves of. The others should be denied. He’s like a modern day Lester Maddox.
I generally disagree with him, but what you describe is something true of basically everyone, from Maddox to MLK.
The idea that you have some sort of a “civil right” to compel a restaurant-owner to serve you if he’d rather not is . . . fucked-up. (Regardless of how many people, including legislators & judges, share it.)
Restaurants at least involve a short-term necessity. The idea that you have the civil right to force someone to bake a cake, with a particular message, for an event months in the future, is worse.
Governor Maddox was a DemoKKKrat by the way, and would probably be voting for “#34” (can tell Non-Native Georgians when they refer to #34 by that “Other” name) instead of the Anti-Semitic Luis Chaka-khan-Chaka-khan-Chaka-Farakhan wanta me, (the Very Wrong Reverend) Rafael War-lock
Well, there goes your Uncle Walt’s 30-30 and his buddy’s 30-06 … and pretty much any other gun for taking White Tail or Elk.
DonP, part of the problem with dialogue on gun rights is the inability (or unwillingness) of gun advocates to read and comprehend points, even when they are reiterated. Neither gun you mentioned would be included in the class I mentioned. Very few guns which exist now, other than AR-style rifles, would be. Read what I wrote again. If you still don’t see what your problem is, then check up on your gun pedantry.
Your definition excludes the majority of rifles and shotguns used and sold today.
If you think otherwise, you are the ignorant one — and I am pretty sure this has been explained to you before. Your attempted pedantry is wrong, as usual.
And by “excludes” I mean it would exclude them from allowable possession.
I suspect he thinks that the center-fire ammunition part only covers a few guns. That is not true. A majority of rifles (and shotguns) use center-fire ammunition, just as almost all have semiautomatic action and more than 400 ft-lb of muzzle energy.
400 ft lbs is 9mm +P territory. It’s .45 ACP muzzle energy. Out of handguns.
And what’s with ceiling on muzzle energy in this crazy scheme. Suddenly you’d be okay with semi-automatic guns if they’re in .300 Win Mag or .50 BMG? That would make mass shootings better?
This is why we don’t take gun control people seriously.
CarlosT, restrictions on a right should be narrowly tailored.
The point of the muzzle energy range is to define the kind of cartridges which, first, make a semi-auto rifle most useful for rapid fire mass-killing attacks, and, second, for giving would-be active shooters confidence they can hold off the cops long enough to run up the kill score. Heavy-recoil, hard-to-carry, expensive ammunition is not a good fit for any of that.
Who knows, it could be that if you did ban AR-style rifles with .223 ammunition (or similar ammunition), then would-be mass killers would switch to more powerful, more expensive, high-recoil, accuracy-disrupting loads. But the killers do not seem to be using those now, so banning the loads which are not favored by mass killers seems at first glance like avoidable overreach.
Of course you are free to discount those points to zero if you want to. But really, you couldn’t tell from what I wrote above that I might have at least a bit of experience with firearms? Why is it that gun advocates are so invested in calling others ignorant, even when gun advocates ought to be able to discern some others are not ignorant?
You’re arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Cartridges that make a gun easier to control, and which are chosen as a military standard and for defensive purposes, would be banned because you think they are “unusually dangerous”. More powerful cartridges are okay because, although they can fire farther and so more damage, they are somehow “less dangerous”.
The Supreme Court rejected that logic 83 years ago.
“CarlosT, restrictions on a right should be narrowly tailored.”
You say that, then advocate banning the most widely owned firearms in the country.
Bellmore, you have no way to know how widely-owned AR-15 style rifles are. Maybe a few folks like them so much they buy multiples, possibly with an eye to accumulating vast civilian arsenals. But even if publicized figures are valid for sales of AR-15-style rifles, and even if nobody owns more than one of them, they would still remain a small fraction of all the firearms held by civilians.
Firearms which do not qualify to be listed as I described vastly outnumber AR 15-style firearms. Given that AR 15-style is an informal term to aggregate the various gun designs we are talking about, it is appropriate to compare them to the much-larger aggregation of guns which are not that style.
So, AR-15 style rifles become uncommon on the basis of your speculation that most of them are owned by a small number of wealthy collectors? You’re genuinely nuts.
Bellmore, your assertion was that they are widely distributed. If they are held in fewer hands than expected, they are demonstrably not as widely distributed as you presumed. It is simple logic. Nothing nuts about it.
The larger point still stands too. Other kinds of weapons are far more widely distributed. Which means that, comparatively, AR-style weapons are less widely distributed than the others.
Let me add a third point, which I have not mentioned before. The notion that a weapon cannot be regulated or banned if it is in, “common use,” catches the Court practicing a style of reasoning it would forbid to others.
The logical basis to ban a weapon if it has proved unreasonably dangerous is the public danger itself. The more common the use, the greater the danger. The, “common use,” test, if that is what it is, is thus unrelated logically to the constitutional purpose the Court has conceded.
“your assertion was that they are widely distributed”
It’s an assertion that is as plausible as, say, ‘lawnmowers are widely owned’. I mean, I don’t have any peer reviewed studies to prove lawnmowers are in common use, but it seems likely based on my experience.
Someone who lives in Manhattan can question whether lawnmowers are widely owned – after all, it could be they are all owned by a few wealthy lawn mower hoarders – but to most of the country that seems like a silly argument.
Hey (man!) you’re right, I’ll be turning all of mine in today.
NOT! (HT Borat)
“Dangerously unusual” isn’t the standard, as Kavenaugh has pointed out “dangerous and unusual” is the standard, AR-15s are quite common, so they can’t qualify as unusual, thus can’t be banned, no matter how dangerous you think they are.
Kazinski, my premise for this discussion is that by exchanging views it might be possible to come up with a solution to pressing societal problems involving guns. Those include mass shootings, which destroy public safety, and tend to stoke public demands to ban all guns.
Your premise seems to be to scream, “My RIGHTS,” in an attempt to shut down discussion. Why bother?
Everyone already knows there are gun rights absolutists who refuse all compromise. You don’t seem to have anything to add to that, so why comment at all?
Do you suppose anyone who thinks there are urgent gun issues which need discussion will suddenly think otherwise after you assert, “Kavenaugh has pointed out,” this or that? There has been a decades-long, legally fraught debate, founded on disagreements about the proper extent of gun rights. That debate isn’t over.
The only person screaming here is you. And you’re also being ludicrously ignorant or dishonest — you make a big deal about “mass shootings, which destroy public safety”, and you propose to ban commonly used and convenient rifles on the theory that they are somehow unusually dangerous, but you ignore the vastly larger number of handgun crimes (from robbery to murder).
And your form of argument — to falsely accuse your opponents of screaming, to invoke absolutists who refuse to compromise only on one side of the argument, to ignore the substantive criticisms of your position in favor of such invective — makes you come across as one of those absolutists who refuses to discuss things in good faith.
1)The ‘if only we ban AR15’s mass shootings won’t happen’ argument seems to ignore the weapons used in, say, Va Tech, Columbine, etc.
2)I recall the original VPC white paper from the 1990’s which coined the term ‘assault weapon’, among others (‘hand cannon’ for large handguns, ‘pocket rocket’ for small handguns, ‘sniper rifles’ for bolt actions, and so on). The theory was that that it didn’t matter what flavor of ban caught on; any ban would work as a starting point. When that ban, whatever it was, didn’t work, you would then argue you needed to ban the next category and so on.
Please show how you know the term, “assault weapon,” was invented in the 1990s. Pretty sure I saw it on the cover of Guns and Ammo well before then (late ’70s or early ’80s?), where it caught my eye and stuck in my memory as a startling bit of marketing that would come to no good.
Without pretending to quote accurately, what I remember was a cover promotion for something like, “A Roundup of the New Assault Weapons.” Of course I could be wrong about something I think I remember from so long ago. How do you know you are correct?
I don’t think that word means what you think it does. In a compromise both sides give and both sides get. When it comes to anti gun laws we’ve been giving but not getting. When is it our turn to get?
Mosley, would-be gun controllers could reframe your assertion, to match your nonsense: “When it comes to pro-gun laws we’ve been giving but not getting.” I think the point of compromise is to consider both kinds of laws together.
From where I sit, living in an extremely blue gun-controlling state, following long former residence in the rural Rocky Mountain West, I see strong points on both sides. I still remember with delight riding in an open jeep, two unloaded shotguns pointed up between my knees, wearing a hunting vest loaded with shells, while we circled the state capitol building in Boise. The jeep’s owner and driver said to me, “You know, where I come from in Chicago, they would cut your balls off for this.” That brought me up short. I hadn’t given it a thought. Seemed like the most normal thing in the world.
Differences like that suggest to me that the first principle of compromise ought to be various rules to be applied in different places. I assume anyone who cannot reconcile themselves to that probably is more interested in imposing a single rule everywhere—which in the case of national policy for civilian gun management can only result in imposing minority rule by force. That seems unwise.
Yep. I was right. You don’t know what “compromise” means. Or your a liar.
“you’re”
You claim to want an exchange of ideas. Okay, I’ll bite. Why do you think banning a sub class of firearms that are used in roughly 300 or so homicides (in which the weapon is specified) annually is going to solve any problems? Normally I assume the Josh Sugarmann approach which is that no good is expected from such a ban but it will make it easier to ban the next class and so on until I might be able to keep my lever action 44 or my bolt action 243 and possibly my 22 single action revolver (but no guarantees). But since you claim to want an exchange of ideas I will assume that you are acting in good faith even if I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick Lucy’s football.
Mosley, mass murders of children seem trivial to you? I have a suggestion. Find yourself a pediatric neurosurgeon. Tell her you are a gun advocate, but want to be better informed. Ask for a few minutes to discuss the term, “GSW to the head.”
As for your guns, you seem to have neglected to optimize home defense. Why not get a semi-auto shotgun for that? And maybe a larger-caliber revolver to defend yourself on the street, and backup the shotgun at home. Nothing I have advocated would threaten any of that. Would you seriously suggest that with that range of choices your right to keep and bear arms for self-defense had been taken away?
It is not your business what arms someone else has.
It is that simple.
Whatever happened to minding your own business?
Ejercito, following Mosley’s voluntary introduction of specific arms he owns, I discussed them. Would you suggest the specifics of my discussion amount to a proposal to take away his right to keep and bear arms.
You misunderstood me. The guns I listed are the ones that I have that I might be able to keep after the “assault weapon” ban, the sniper rifle ban, the “high capacity semi auto weapons of war” handgun ban, and any other ban that the hoplophobes can get enacted. As for my home and public defense, don’t worry. I haven’t neglected anything.
The number of children who die in swimming pools is roughly the same that are killed with all rifles. Do you advocate for a ban on swimming pools? Why? Are 300 plus deaths of children trivial to you?
And I was right. Lucy pulled the football away again. So much for the “exchange of ideas”.
To clarify: The number of children who die annually in swimming pools is roughly the same as all people that are killed with all rifles. Not just children.
Someone who clearly doesn’t understand the purpose or scope of the 2A, and suggests that your criteria makes rifles ‘unusually dangerous’ is neither a pro-gun advocate, nor anyone who should advertise their support of the 2A.
Rifles fitting the criteria you are concerned about are ‘commonly used for lawful purposes,’ and are thus overwhelmingly protected by the 2A.
The fact that less than 1/100 of a percent of owners decide to use them to commit crimes is not a valid justification for your bullshit.
Cavanaugh, now do pistols. Tell me what percentage of pistols will during their service lives be used to shoot someone. Just make a rough calculation. Disregard long guns for convenience, and use this principle: all the shootings which happen must be accounted for by all the pistols there are.
Annual shootings, counting homicides and treated non-fatal woundings, not counting suicides, come to ~ 100,000+. Cumulate that annual toll for an interval to account for the probable service life of a typical pistol. It will come out somewhere between 5 million and 7 million shootings, probably. Put that in the numerator, and the number of pistols in the nation in the denominator. Tell me what you come up with. What percentage of pistols will eventually be used to shoot someone?
Later we can get to the question of what percentage of owners will become shooters, after adjusting for those who own multiple pistols.
Cavanaugh, I do not have to be a doctrinaire absolutist to be a pro-gun advocate. Being an absolutist may just make you a counter-productive advocate.
By the way, who else here has proposed a plan for a return to general access to fully automatic weapons?
Looks like some Progressive communities around Denver are virtue signaling by passing these laws they know will be overturned, just so they can say they passed them.
This is why there will never be an end to gun control. It’s an effective way for a new politician to make a name for themselves and get on the record as a true blue crusader.
There will always be new politicians looking to make a name for themselves and old politicians coming up for reelection, so there are always be new laws, regardless of what may previously exist and the effectiveness thereof. California has never found a gun control point at which they’re satisfied because politically that is impossible.
The distressing thing is it takes a supermajority Democrat legislator a month to pass new poorly written laws, and the court years to strike them down. The legislator can literally overwhelm the judiciary with a flood of bullshit.
At some point we’ll have to put some states in to pre-clearance on gun laws, on the same theory that resulted in pre-clearance for election laws. The level of active hostility to this right is similar.
More second amendment absolutism on display here. The blood of thousands of your fellow American citizens is on your hands, you are bathing in it with your specious reading on the 2nd amendment.
haven’t shot anyone (as far as anyone can prove) yet, Spooks gonna Spook.
Shorter Hugh: I’m a fucking idiot.
“As he accurately stated, Bruen affirms the right to bear arms, but also allows governments to decide whether the mode of carry shall be open or concealed.”
The Bruen opinion said that only concealed carry can be prohibited and said that gun laws are subject to the One-Step test where the government would have to prove that the non-existent history of prohibiting open carry was consistent with Founding Era laws but if the history and tradition conflicts with the plain text of the Second Amendment then the text controls.
I have to agree with you that open carry can’t be banned, mainly because it rules out carrying a long gun, and that can’t be right.
Kazinski, this is the second case I am aware of where a judge did not apply the Bruen One-Step Test. I suspect it won’t be the last.
[Citation needed.]
What I find interesting about all the law suits brought up to fight gun laws is that the most appropriate arguments [ or denials ] are never bought up by the high priced gov controlled attorneys.
It is never mentioned that no state is granted the power to make and impose any gun laws on its citizens or that the states never granted the fed gov the power to make and impose any such laws on their citizens.
While I personally know the unconstitutional presumption the states and fed gov is making, I think people should consider what I stated and start demanding that the gov prove the laws are constitutional or cease enforcement. That is actually a right that the people have. The actual answer is one the gov is no allowed to disclose. This provides for a natural win because the gov cannot impose a law it cannot, or simply will not, prove is constitutional. In regard to such a denial, it must be made as I stated it to be effective and cover both state and fed actions on the citizens of the states.