Link: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapon-ban-u-s-supreme-court-n442056
Summary:
Recently, gun violence and possible gun regulations have been a major issue in the United Sates. One case in particular is challenging a law in Chicago that bans certain firearms (such as the common AR-15 and AK-47 rifles) as well as guns classified as assault weapons. Specifically, the law bans the sale, purchase, and possession of semi-automatic guns that can hold over 10 rounds of ammunition in a single ammunition clip/magazine.
The reasoning behind this was that these weapons need to be reloaded less frequently, which means that they can fire rapidly and cause more injuries. This law was upheld by a federal district judge as well as a federal appeals court panel. Judge Frank Easterbrook, who wrote the opinion on the case ruling, said that the law was upheld to "reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs".
The Illinois Rifle Association is currently challenging the law and its constitutionality. According to the Second Amendment, individuals have a right to own firearms for self defense. On top of that, the association is also stating that some of the firearms being banned are "in no way unusual," and even protected in other states by laws banning communities from restricting the sale of them. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, this law and others like it banning the sale of certain guns could be ruled unconstitutional and be abolished. However, if the Supreme Court rejects the case, the law would stand, and would boost efforts for other laws trying to impose bans on the possession of firearms.
Questions: Is this law banning the sale and possession of certain firearms unconstitutional, or would it help regulate gun violence? Should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, and if so, what do you think the decision should be?
Very interesting- I wonder if the limiting of magazine size could be a new method of limiting fun violence. I did find another post online that threatened civil war if the ban were upheld. In fact, the author said "with the American civilian owning between five and ten times as many AR-15s as the U.S. military owns M4s and M16s" the AR-15 is the gun of the militia. Kinda scary?
ReplyDeleteIn this case, this law would be very beneficial in limiting injuries and deaths in the US that the constitutionality of it isn't as important. This law would be taking the right step forward in regulating gun violence and limiting violent acts from taking place in general. I think that the Supreme Court should at least hear the case even if there isn't a very likely chance of it being passed. I think that if this case was taken into regard, it would help with the issue of violence and reduce mass shootings.
ReplyDeleteIn this situation, I believe that the ban would be more beneficial than harmful. Considering that the US experiences a greater deal of firearm related violence than any other country, I believe that whether or not the Supreme Court's decision was completely within their constitutional authority or constitutional in the first place is completely irrelevant. The Supreme Court should still hear the case even if there is some sort of opposition, especially if this opposition comes primarily from the National Rifle Association. I don't really believe that this ban will ever be put forth because of the NRA's heavy lobbying and the opposition of the people, who are seldom in favor of such changes.
ReplyDeleteFrom my perspective, I believe that laws banning the sale and possession of certain firearms are just and constitutional as they protect people not only from others but from themselves. I also feel the law is constitutional, however, I think that the case should be taken on by the supreme court as I feel even those who disagree with me should see due process by the law.
ReplyDeleteI think the law banning the sale and possession of certain firearms would help regulate gun violence. Although many would argue that the law is going against the right to bear arms, I believe this law would place the US in the right direction towards decreasing gun violence. I do think the Supreme Court should hear the case because so many people are involved and it could affect the nation. I believe the decision should be to at least implement stronger background checks.
ReplyDeleteAlthough personally I believe that this law would promote safety with guns, it does limit people's rights given in the second amendment. Also, no matter how many gun laws restrict gun usage in the United States, some people can get any amount of guns over the black market and other illegal trading systems where laws are irrelevant. I believe that the Supreme court should acknowledge the case as potentially limiting gun violence, and perhaps start to expand other protective gun laws such as background checks.
ReplyDeleteAlthough personally I believe that this law would promote safety with guns, it does limit people's rights given in the second amendment. Also, no matter how many gun laws restrict gun usage in the United States, some people can get any amount of guns over the black market and other illegal trading systems where laws are irrelevant. I believe that the Supreme court should acknowledge the case as potentially limiting gun violence, and perhaps start to expand other protective gun laws such as background checks.
ReplyDeleteThe ban on selling these weapons would definitely help lower the gun violence. I think any and all regulation that the government is willing to enforce will help keep Americans safe. It is controversial because the constitution does clearly give the "right to bear arms" to all Americans, but the time has come for people to give up this outdated line to better the majority of the population. I think it is necessary for the Supreme Court to hear this case and rule in favor of gun control because it will prevent deaths and make people think more cautiously about the weapons they have.
ReplyDeleteI think that this ban is beneficial in combating gun violence. Although I understand the argument that this ban is infringing on the right to bear arms, I do not think guns such as AK-47's are necessary for self defense. There are many powerful weapons that people can get their hands on and I think these dangerous weapons need to be banned. However, I think the Supreme Court would rule that the ban is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is violating the Second Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government should be able to consider how advanced the weaponry has gotten in recent years and put a ban some that could put many at danger. This would strengthen gun regulation as well as the safety as americans. The supreme court should choose the case because there needs to be a change in the rising amount of shootings in this country. They would hopefully come to the conclusion of putting a higher level of gun regulation in place because the level of gun violence will only worsen if there isn't some form of change.
ReplyDeleteWhille I am a supporter of the right to bear arms, I see no problem in limiting the assault weapons that people can posses in the United States. People have the right to defend themselves, but by no means do they need an AK-47 to do so. Limitations like this could potentially stop massive shootings from occurring or at least being as bad as the assailant in many cases would not have nearly as much firepower as before.
ReplyDeleteWho would actually go the extra mile to buy a legal gun that only shoots less than 10 rounds per magazine when they are about to go shoot people? People will find a way to get illegal guns, just like during the Prohibition when the sale and consumption of alcohol flourished. Rules are made to be broken right? Of course, people who want/need a gun to protect themselves certainly do not need a gun that holds a lot of bullets, especially when the need for one is low. All in all, I believe while this law has good intentions behind it, it will not be as effective as everyone hopes.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the Illinois Rifle Association is still fighting this law is ridiculous. The law was upheld in both the district and appellate courts. At this point, there is no rationale in trying to continue this fight. No one in the city of Chicago needs fully automatic weapons to protect themselves and this law is a step in the direction to implementing gun control throughout the United States. Of course, people would still be able to buy guns via the black market, but most would be turned off that they can't get it legally
ReplyDelete