Is there a constitutional reason we can’t stop these look-alike military weapons from being made or imported? The ones that always get around detailed weapons laws.
This sounds like more of a Great Debate to me. What weapons in particular are you referring to? The larger question is why you would want to do such a thing if you are only talking about cosmetics.
The second amendment has nothing to do with manufacturing guns, only the right of the people to keep and bear them. Debate that to your heart’s content but it has nothing to do with your question.
You may familiarize yourself with weapon laws that attempted to ban so-called military look alike semi automatics. Because they are based on a specific list of cosmetic features and not how the weapon actually functions it was a simple matter to alter guns to comply with the law. Banning a weapon by name is almost meaningless and banning one that merely looks like a military issue weapon is too vague to withstand any judicial scrutiny.
Its not a GD if people stick to the question asked in the OP.
As to the OP, I am sure more knowledgeable people will come along shortly but my impression is that the SCOTUS has managed to succesfully avoid 2nd amendment questions for a while. That means for all intents and purposes there should be nothing stopping Congress from regulating importation or manufacturing of guns through the Commerce Clause.
I personally think this one can be answered in General Questions.
Let’s all try to do our best to keep debate out. Might not happen, but I can always wish…
samclem GQ moderator
Here’s a brief synopsis of the major federal gun control acts, and short statement of their intent.
Take a good look at 1994’s Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, where you’ll find part of what Padeye is referring to.
Fair enough. The question is really a two part one. Domestic weapons can only be prohibited by congress. This has been done for example with the '92 ban of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” This law was in force for ten years and passed it’s sunset date without being renewed by congress.
Imported weapons are another matter since under the gun control act the BATFE can stop import of weapons that are not “particularly suited for sporting purposes.” Just what that means is a whole other topic but it is used to stop the import of semiautomatic rifles that take detachable box magazines. The definition is written in a very specific way that lists a number of parts - reciever, barrel, bolt, bolt carrier, buttstock, magazine body, mag floorplate, etc. IIRC if ten or more of these parts are imported then the weapon is imported. For this reason a cottage industry exists to make US made parts for such weapons.
As an example I have had project gun I’ve been planning to build for years. I first purchased a Steyr StG-58 parts kit. This is basically an Austrian military rifle that has been demilitarized, had the reciever cut in half. None of the parts in the kit are by themselves regulated per se. Since the recieiver with the serial number has been destroyed they are just ordinary parts which can be ordered by mail.
The weapon could be completed with a new US made or Imported reciever but it would be an illegal construction. It can only be constructed if enough parts are replaced with US parts so the completed weapon is no longer considered imported.
Wrong. California currently bans all AR and AK series weapons and clones. Because quite simply, people can dance around all they want and claim that their ROMAK or WASR or MAADI or whathaveyou is not an AK but everyone knows what it is.
The same goes for all the clones of the AR15.
The California Attourney General WARNING: PDF! has an assault weapons ID guide for this purpose.
-
-
- Yes–“these features” can be (and were) controlled–for a while. The problem of gun violence doesn’t have much to do with assault weapons however, and so most of the “assault weapon features” that the 1994 assault weapons ban was based on were never really significant in criminal use. The ban expired without renewal because gun-control groups could not present much evidence that it had been successful in reducing crime.
-
For the most part, criminals tend to prefer handguns, as these can be easily concealed inside regular clothing.
CynicalGabe: since the OP specifically asked about Constitutional impediments in conjunction with the 2nd Amendment, I think it’s reasonable to assume that he’s referring to federal laws. Within that scope, I think Padeye’s entire initial response was accurate.
However you do raise one very valid point: since, as treis correctly pointed out, SCOTUS is extremely reluctant to directly address 2nd Amendment issues, the individual states pretty much have free reign to craft state legislation that goes beyond (or stands in place of absent) federal legislation WRT firearms.
Since (to the best of my knowledge) only certain municipalities to date have attempted to outright ban firearms, the issue is pretty much a state-level one, rather than a federal; I think it would take a state-level attempt to totally ban private possession of all firearms (not just certain categories) to kick SCOTUS in its ass and get a ruling one way or the other.
But somewhere down at the state-level, in between zero-regulation and outright bans on firearm possession, there’s a lot of open ground, legally speaking, for the states to maneuver around in, and some states are more stringent than others, apparently without creating a federal-level Constitutional issue that needs SCOTUS’ personal attention.
I understand the identification guide is there to make enforcement easier but the real meat of the law is the list of identifying characteristics which begins on page 70. You will note that the generic description would include every single weapon shown. The '94 federal law (thank for the correction ExTank) is similarly written including banned guns by name but every analysys I read of that law said that section was meaningless fluff and that the technical description was the only one that matterd. I think it would be safe to say the law would be unenforcable if it included only the photographs and gun names.
Bingo, exactly what I was talking about. These guns are most certainly look-alikes for AR-15/M16 rifles but they do not fit the generic description since they lack detachable magazines.
Ruger Mini-14/30 rifles are not banned because they do not fit the generic description, lacking a protruding pistol grip, flash hider, grenade launcher, folding stock and forward pistol grip.
Doug. I apologize for winding up in your post. I was trying to tell you to keep debates out of this thread. What I wound up doing was removing part of your post. Ironically, the part of your post that wasn’t controversial.
Please keep debate out of this thread. Thanks.
samclem GQ moderator
…and now I see that Padeye quoted the part I deleted. Sorry again for doing that. That part was fine. Just don’t need extraneous remarks about criminals, etc.