Article debunks entire "AWB" issue

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

Please take the time to read this:

http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/v...text=conlawnow

A bit CA-centric, but shows how all the fuss regarding "AW"s is much ado about nothing. Some very good statistics and arguments to use next time you are in discussion. Mail a copy to all PA and US Reps/Senators too.

Regards, Jim

[ShooterInPA1]

The entire premise of the article is incorrect:

a new term has entered the American legal vocabulary: “assault weapon” (AW). What is it? Generally, these are semiautomatic rifles and pistols that use detachable magazines.

Pure, unmitigated bullshit. So we are supposed to say that a Ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon? Once we allow them to create the terms and definitions, we lose from the start.

[RTF92.5]

Shooter in PA, did you even finish that paragraph?

First, the statement is not inaccurate... all "AW"s (generally) have detachable magazines, but not all rifles and pistols with detachable magazine are "AW"s.

Second, while there are some typos, this is pretty well written and proves that "AW" bans don't pass Rational Basis Scrutiny... ergo... they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! The author is on our side!

Here's the rest of the paragraph that upset you:

"AWs usually fire a less powerful cartridge than hunting rifles and have a somewhat military appearance (black plastic stocks, pistol grips, and bayonet lugs being common components). AWs are functionally indistinguishable from sporting arms that have been used for more than a century by civilians in the U.S. with semiautomatic, detachable magazine feed."*

He makes your point right there.

If you read the section above the first footnote, you will see that, while sections of a book Clayton E. Cramer wrote were cited by Justice Breyer in the McDonald v City of Chicago dissent, it and sections of another book he wrote were cited by both Justice Scalia in the Majority Opinion of District of Columbia v Heller and Justice Alito in the Majority Opinion of McDonald v City of Chicago... our two biggest wins in the last century.

Further... the research for this article was paid for by Firearms Policy Coalition and Calguns Foundation, who with the exception of about a dozen lawyers and the NRA are the only people trying to keep California gun owners in possession of anything more dangerous than gun-shaped pop tarts.

This is not an anti-gun hit piece... quite the opposite... and while it needs another pass from the editor... every 2nd Amendment supporter in the country should be conversant in these ideas and statistics.

So, Shooter in PA, please check your anger, run a marker over that sentence if it still offends you, and read the rest of the words.

* Assault Weapon Bans: Can they Survive Rational Basis Scrutiny? Clayton E. Cramer

[Klyde]

The entire premise of the article is incorrect:

a new term has entered the American legal vocabulary: “assault weapon” (AW). What is it? Generally, these are semiautomatic rifles and pistols that use detachable magazines.

Pure, unmitigated bullshit. So we are supposed to say that a Ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon? Once we allow them to create the terms and definitions, we lose from the start.

The author of the above linked piece, Clayton Cramer, is and has been, a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment. As RTF92.5 notes, several of Cramer's papers are quoted in important court decisions, supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

A large portion of Clayton Cramers's time is spent dismantling the Anti's position. He has to present the arguments in the same terms the Anti's use.

Cramer frequently asks for input, review help, and critique for the papers before final publication.
Watch his blog for upcoming papers.
http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com
For further evidence Clayton Cramer is on our side, read another of his pieces from June, a short paper of on the same topic. "Assault Weapons Common Misconceptions" and the accompanying, June 21, blog entry "Assault Weapons, Fact and Fiction".

Assault Weapons: Common Misconceptions:
http://claytoncramer.com/Assault%20W...%20Fiction.pdf

Assault Weapons, Fact and Fiction:
http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2...d-fiction.html

[Mitch10mm]

The antis are never going to stop calling semi autos assault weapons and will use our scoffing at the terminology against us. "People are dying and the NRA wants to split hairs over definitions because they can't win with facts "

Every time I've corrected someone over the use of assault weapon I've lost some observing the debate. "Who cares" is the general attitude.

[av8tr123]

Blah, b'blah, b'blah.......? A baseball bat, wrecking bar, an ax or even a broom can be an "assault weapon" if they are utilized with that intention! Definitions are used by those intending to litigate or legislate. We no longer live in the United States that our founding fathers were so careful to establish.

[Silence Dogood]

"Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center

Josh Sugarmann

Josh Sugarmann is the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Prior to founding the VPC, Sugarmann was a press officer in the national office of Amnesty International USA and was the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns

[TSimonetti]

Shooter in PA, did you even finish that paragraph?

First, the statement is not inaccurate... all "AW"s (generally) have detachable magazines, but not all rifles and pistols with detachable magazine are "AW"s.

Agree that the article may be a useful tool, but I think Shooter in Pa has a point. The author's use of the word "generally" does not really excuse the sloppy opening definition. In addition, there was absolutely no requirement or useful purpose to include handguns, so right off the bat the definition is too broad and misleading. If I were editing that article, I would have asked the author to clean it up.

Shooter's criticism and premise are correct. Why should we accept yet another broadening of the definition of "Assault Weapon" regardless of who is writing it?

[BSH]

The entire premise of the article is incorrect:

a new term has entered the American legal vocabulary: “assault weapon” (AW). What is it? Generally, these are semiautomatic rifles and pistols that use detachable magazines.

That's not the premise of the article at all, nor is it a central point. The premise is that AWBs are not legally defensible.

[TSimonetti]

That's not the premise of the article at all, nor is it a central point. The premise is that AWBs are not legally defensible.

Our federal court system is broken. Judges now make subjective and emotional decisions based on their personal beliefs and ideology. Tell many judges, including half of the Supreme Court that gun bans are not legally defensible and they will laugh in your face or call you dangerous or deranged.

Congress needs to clean house and act to limit the power of the courts, or else the rot will get worse.