Why all semi-auto rifle bans are irrational and ineffective

[Rattler]

Using California as the subject, the author explains why these laws are worthless and accomplish no reduction in crime, yet criminalize many people.

Rational Basis? What A Concept

The old expression is there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and...statistics. It's a worn expression, but this old saw doesn't adequately describe the disconnect between anti-gun legislation and - wait for it....common sense.

Legally, there are other descriptions for what those outside the legal system might call "smell tests" or the simple application of common sense. But the legal descriptors are quite specific. If you're an anti-gun advocate, that's one of those unfortunate situations where emotion just won't erase facts. Despite all good intentions, two plus two really does equal four. Wishing it were three, or five, or any other number won't make it happen. It's just a fact.

In the law, there are levels of arguments under which legislation must be examined. In the District of Columbia versus Dick Heller case, the arguments against gun ownership in the District were ferociously argued, but simply didn't pass "strict scrutiny" - the application of specific examination standards. So, the existing law was struck down. Years later, there's still a good case to be made for finding the entire government of the District in contempt of the Supreme Court with their less than half-hearted efforts to comply with the ruling, but the fact of the matter remains that their law was flawed.

Now, a paper funded by the Calguns Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition indicates that California's "Assault Weapons Ban" fails to pass examination under the "Rational Basis" standard. In the study, author Clayton Cramer exposits the position that "There is no way to hold that AW bans which deny a fundamental right, as Heller determined the Second Amendment to protect, survives the 'rational basis' standard of scrutiny." 

Under that standard, legislation will pass the test if the court finds it is "rationally related to a legitimate state interest" . Sounds like California Attorney General Kamala Harris could make an argument that banning "assault rifles" could make a case, right? 

Not exactly. Because the "assault rifle" is, in fact, one of the least used in commission of crimes. Further, the prohibition is arbitrarily applied -at best- and with irrationally long punishment terms- simply because a class of rifle has been deemed politically unpopular. 

California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 cites a "threat to the health, safety and security of the public as its justification. In fact, however, it's a tough case to prove -because, Cramer writes, "the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country prior to the 1994 ban."

He also points out that the California ban calls on rifle names and model numbers, rather than function characteristics. In fact, they're basically undistinguishable from sporting arms that have been used by civilians in the United States for more than a century.

Think about it..."semiautomatic detachable-feed magazine" rifles sound just as much like a Ruger 10/22 as they do any "modern sporting rifle". And this isn't some new-found position. In a 1988 memo, one California DOJ official pointed out that "assault weapons cannot be defined in a workable way, by size, caliber, action type or magazine capacity....Unless a realistic definition can be developed for 'assault weapons,' we should leave the issue alone."

But, of course, they didn't, choosing instead to criminalize otherwise law-abiding Californians - and chasing much-needed manufacturing out of their state. 

In his writing, Cramer also points out that there's more than just a bit of bigotry toward the guns, their manufacturers and owners, but that's a point it's not really necessary to make to our readers. You already know the truth of Cramer's argument. 

Right now, the atmosphere of the entire country is polluted with what is essentially the all-or-nothing extremism of what will likely be the nastiest final few weeks in any presidential campaign in recent memory. But our courts are supposed to be above petty politics.

--Jim Shepherd

Edited August 24, 2016 by Rattler

[Core]

It's a good piece, but Heller specifically did not bless or speak to assault weapons by name, just weapons "in common use". And AWs are of course in great common use, but that hasn't stopped multiple states banning them.

Despite being a recent ruling Heller has been summarily ignored by many states. In ours for example I still cannot get a pistol without four background checks. What if I'm a hermit and know nobody? What if I am a new retiree and just setup a cottage in an NY county and cannot get references? Denied.

The SCOTUS is junk and constantly ruling down party lines now because they are a bunch of partisan clowns, both sides are. But we're 4:4 now, so anybody looking for a pro-gun ruling needs to be mighty careful, lest they codify a SCOTUS ruling on guns that WILL be roundly followed. If Clinton gets in, forget it, there won't be another pro-gun SCOTUS ruling of big relevance (such as allowing AWs) probably ever, IMO.

[philoshop]

SCOTUS rulings don't need to be 'pro gun'. They only need to uphold our national Constitution. That's their job. And there's a big difference between the two. 'Activist' judges from either side are detrimental to our country.