Assault rifles to be NFA registered?

[jshuberg]

In a post Heller world, I don't think that an assault weapons ban would survive a supreme court challenge. In my opinion anyway.

The Heller ruling pretty much gutted US v Miller 1934 on the grounds that the plaintiff never filed a brief with the court or appeared for oral arguments, and should therefor be carefully scrutinized before being used as precedent. Heller stated this, and reduced the scope of Miller to only that of excluding certain types firearms from 2A protections - those that are commonly used by criminals in crime, and not commonly used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The "assault weapon" doesn't fit this category, as there are hundreds of thousands owned by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

In other words, Heller established that almost all firearms are protected under 2A. They can play with registration schemes and such things, increase the difficulty of ownership, etc. but an outright ban like the one in 1994 would likely be struck down by the current court. I'm sure that Feinstein and friends are well aware of this, which is why they are discussing the possibility of changing "assault weapons" to be title II weapons.

In my amateur non-lawyer opinion, there are two ways that they could try to reclassify "assault weapons" as title II - by explicitly passing new legislation, or implicitly by executive order that "assault weapons" have always actually been Any Other Weapons, and that they are only now realized this. I have no idea if this would survive a court challenge, the AOW definition of the NFA was intentionally written vaguely, so it might. I would hope not though, and the fact that there are so many in existence currently as a title I firearm tends to make me think that a court would find that kind of change to be overreaching without the legislatures involvement. At least a reasonable court that restricts itself to simply deciding issues of existing law.

Honestly, I think the best we can hope for is for the libs overestimate their "mandate"to enact new gun control after CT and overreach and get shut down hard.

[Hmac]

In a post Heller world, I don't think that an assault weapons ban would survive a supreme court challenge. In my opinion anyway.

The Heller ruling pretty much gutted US v Miller 1934 on the grounds that the plaintiff never filed a brief with the court or appeared for oral arguments, and should therefor be carefully scrutinized before being used as precedent. Heller stated this, and reduced the scope of Miller to only that of excluding certain types firearms from 2A protections - those that are commonly used by criminals in crime, and not commonly used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The "assault weapon" doesn't fit this category, as there are hundreds of thousands owned by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

In other words, Heller established that almost all firearms are protected under 2A. They can play with registration schemes and such things, increase the difficulty of ownership, etc. but an outright ban like the one in 1994 would likely be struck down by the current court. I'm sure that Feinstein and friends are well aware of this, which is why they are discussing the possibility of changing "assault weapons" to be title II weapons.

In my amateur non-lawyer opinion, there are two ways that they could try to reclassify "assault weapons" as title II - by explicitly passing new legislation, or implicitly by executive order that "assault weapons" have always actually been Any Other Weapons, and that they are only now realized this. I have no idea if this would survive a court challenge, the AOW definition of the NFA was intentionally written vaguely, so it might. I would hope not though, and the fact that there are so many in existence currently as a title I firearm tends to make me think that a court would find that kind of change to be overreaching without the legislatures involvement. At least a reasonable court that restricts itself to simply deciding issues of existing law.

Honestly, I think the best we can hope for is for the libs overestimate their "mandate"to enact new gun control after CT and overreach and get shut down hard.

I agree with this assessment. Feinstein, in her press conference, said that she is noodling around with a compulsory gun buy-back. Outrageous, of course, but she is well aware of the penalty for overreaching and I'm sure is running these kinds of ideas around to try to gauge what she can get away with.

Those folks have several problems in enacting gun control.

-the sheer number of firearms out there that fall under their definition of "assault weapons"
-the already bitterly divided population on most political issues
-the unfortunate effect of the last major gun control initiative on the makeup of congress
-Republican House of Representatives
-the number of Democrats who are not supporters of gun control
-US public's traditionally short attention span

[Hmac]

So...when I buy a pistol or AR, I have to have a PTP or PTC, both of which encompass a background check. At the point of sale, I undergo a NICS check. If I register a firearm with the NFA I have to undergo an FBI background check.

What's the difference between these background checks? I realize fingerprints are required by NFA, but how much more in-depth is that check, and does registering all SAW's really keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?

NFA registration itself, given the state of ATF and NFA Branch in particular, seems like quite a stretch. Particularly if her rationale is going to be as faulty as "since there are now devices to legally make them automatic" as she said in here press conference a couple of days ago. A simple regulatory "reinterpretation" can get rid of the Slide Fire stock and other such bubba conversions.

[bstrawse]

So...when I buy a pistol or AR, I have to have a PTP or PTC, both of which encompass a background check. At the point of sale, I undergo a NICS check. If I register a firearm with the NFA I have to undergo an FBI background check.

What's the difference between these background checks? I realize fingerprints are required by NFA, but how much more in-depth is that check, and does registering all SAW's really keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?

NFA registration itself, given the state of ATF and NFA Branch in particular, seems like quite a stretch. Particularly if her rationale is going to be as faulty as "since there are now devices to legally make them automatic" as she said in here press conference a couple of days ago. A simple regulatory "reinterpretation" can get rid of the Slide Fire stock and other such bubba conversions.

How many crimes have been committed by folks with a properly registered NFA firearm?

I'm guessing that answer is extremely low.

[JustPlainT]

How many crimes have been committed by folks with a properly registered NFA firearm?

I'm guessing that answer is extremely low.

Exactly 2. One of which was an off duty police officer.

[Hmac]

How many crimes have been committed by folks with a properly registered NFA firearm?

I'm guessing that answer is extremely low.

I agree, extremely low.

But why is that? Is it due to the fact that (presumably) the background check is more rigorous? Is it because of a statistical anomaly given the relatively fewer numbers? Is it because those people that go to the trouble to build, register and pay the $200 are more likely to be law abiding, non-mentally ill people? Is it because you just can't go buy an SBR without a waiting period (a 4-6 month waiting period) and your average LGS (non-class III dealer) can't sell you one?

Setting the legalities and practicalities of the concept aside, does Diane Feinstein have a point that moving all SAW rifles into the NFA category will decrease gun violence with that particular category of firearm?

[Heffay]

The point could be made that the reason there are so few crimes with them is that there are so few of them around. It's not exactly the example we should be discussing, because it does make a plausible argument (to the layman) that reducing the number of guns reduces gun crime.

Regardless, this is a non-starter. It's just the opening bid for negotiations on a bill that could possibly get support. Not that I think there will be anything that gets through even remotely similar to the AWB. It's just an opening salvo.

[Halfchrome]

At this point all you can do is wait and see. Chances are there will be no major changes to current laws IMO but you better get your ducks in a row just in case.