I was reading the Q&A section of govtrack about HR6257 (2008 assult weapons ban), and I saw something that almost showed me a ray of hope. I'd never actually read the wording of DC vs. Heller. I may have to go back and do that now.
http://www.govtrack.us/users/questions.xpd?topic=bill:h110-6257
Quote:
The Common Clause in Heller says you can't ban guns in common use. "Assault Weapons" are very much so in common use. The AR-15, for example, is the most popular center-fire rifle in the US. Semi-auto AK-47 clones are everywhere. How in the world could a new AWB possibly pass the new Constitutional litmis test?
Quote:
A2: Scalia may have put in the "common use" doctrine into the Heller decision specifically to provide precedent in challenging a new "Assault Weapons" ban. That language may allow a party to challenge a new ban which includes common "AR" type rifles. However, the term, "common use" is not the same as "common rifle." The government will have little trouble in distinguishing the dicta about common use. It all depends on who is sitting on the court listening to the arguments. [Answer submitted on Oct 23, 2008 2:56 PM]
Did they actually build in a way to fight back against future bans in the decision?
http://www.govtrack.us/users/questions.xpd?topic=bill:h110-6257
Quote:
The Common Clause in Heller says you can't ban guns in common use. "Assault Weapons" are very much so in common use. The AR-15, for example, is the most popular center-fire rifle in the US. Semi-auto AK-47 clones are everywhere. How in the world could a new AWB possibly pass the new Constitutional litmis test?
Quote:
A2: Scalia may have put in the "common use" doctrine into the Heller decision specifically to provide precedent in challenging a new "Assault Weapons" ban. That language may allow a party to challenge a new ban which includes common "AR" type rifles. However, the term, "common use" is not the same as "common rifle." The government will have little trouble in distinguishing the dicta about common use. It all depends on who is sitting on the court listening to the arguments. [Answer submitted on Oct 23, 2008 2:56 PM]
Did they actually build in a way to fight back against future bans in the decision?
