An “Assault Weapons” Ban Does Indeed Violate The Second Amendment

opinion by Tyler Yzaguirre

Assault Weapons
Assault Weapons

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- On Friday, April 6, 2018, U.S. District Judge William Young said assault weapons are military firearms and aren't protected by the constitutional right to “bear arms.” However, he couldn’t be more wrong.

First and foremost, the term “Assault-Weapon” is a made up term by the gun control lobby to strike fear into the hearts and minds of Americans. Gun control activists rely very heavily on fear-based language to persuade Americans that guns are inherently evil, and that the only solution is to pass stricter gun control laws.

Assault is an action; it’s a verb, not a noun. Firearms have no soul, they’re not living objects, and they are not inherently evil. You could put a loaded firearm on a table, leave it there, and unless somebody picked it up, aimed it, and pulled the trigger; the firearm would remain harmless. That settles the debate of “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

The origin of this term “Assault-Weapon” is not one hundred percent clear. According to the Nexis News database, the first mention of “assault weapons” appeared in a 1980 New York Times story. Over the past several decades, gun-control proponents have heavily relied on this terminology and have blanket-applied it to any firearm that looked scary.

Secondly, gun-control proponents now slap the term “assault” onto any firearm they don’t like or want to be restricted from public use. The public mistakes the “AR” in AR-15 to mean “assault rifle,” while fake news headquarters CNN, frequently refers to AR-15’s as “assault rifles.” The “AR” in “AR-15” stands for “ArmaLite Rifle,” the company that first manufactured the AR-15 in December 1959.

Thirdly, let's address the issue of the “AR-15” and how dangerous it is. These are semi-automatic rifles, not “fully automatic machine guns” as some gun control puppets, like Whoopi Goldberg, would have you think. Semi auto firearms have been in public circulation for more than 60 years. It wasn’t until almost 50 years later that we saw one used in a mass shooting.

Furthermore, if we look back at the recent mass murders committed with an AR-15, we see a trend. These criminals should not have had access to a firearm in the first place, or law enforcement failed to act upon credible information.

Nikolas Cruz – Parkland massacre. Police had visited Cruz’s home more than 30 times since 2011. Even worse, the FBI had received tips about Cruz before he committed his horrible act. The first tip on September 24, 2017, when Cruz posted the comment “I'm going to be a professional school shooter,” on a YouTube video, and the second on January 5, 2018, when an anonymous person called the FBI to warn them about Cruz. The FBI admitted to not following established follow up protocols. “Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life,” the FBI said.

Devin Patrick Kelley – Sutherland, Texas Church massacre. Kelley should not have had access to firearms, according to Texas Governor Abbott and current federal law. Kelley was dishonorably discharged from the military, which automatically bars someone from ever purchasing firearms again.
Omar Mateen – Pulse Nightclub massacre. Mateen had been on the FBI’s suspected terrorist list, investigated twice by the FBI for terrorism, and convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes.

Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik – San Bernardino massacre. According to then FBI Director James Comey, both were “radicalized” before they started dating each other and that they were “homegrown violent extremists” who were “inspired by foreign terrorist organizations.” Farook and Malik did not purchase their firearms. The firearms used in the massacre were a “straw purchase” bought by Enrique Marquez Jr., who pleaded guilty in February 2017.
Fourthly and finally, an “assault weapons” ban certainly violates the Second Amendment. In 2008, Justice Scalia handed down one of the most historic, landmark decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court. DC v. Heller held that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

In the majority’s opinion written by Justice Scalia, he states that the second amendment protects firearms that are in “common use.” The National Rifle Association estimates that there are more than eight million AR-15s and its variations in circulation. The AR-15 has been in circulation and readily available for purchase, by law-abiding citizens, since 1959. If you’re still not sold on the fact that AR-15s, and its variations, are in “common use” you can read these self-defense stories from 2013 – 2018, in which an AR-15 saved lives and stopped crime.

About Tyler Yzaguirre

Tyler Yzaguirre is the co-founder and president of the Second Amendment Institute, which promotes gun rights through education and activism. Follow him at www.sainational.org .

  • 43
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    22 Comment threads
    21 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    29 Comment authors
    ray bWASPJames AndrewsjojhnTodd Sanderson Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    ray b
    Guest
    ray b

    id say we put the truth out there to these anti gun people to there face so very bad enough to trigger them. so they can throw the first punch at us & then the pro gun people will know that the anti gun people want to disarm & hurt people & destory the united states. history will repeat itself if the people in united states won’t do anything to stop them (anti gun). they will never stop till you americans of all color stand up & make the anti gun people stop or force them stop to shut the… Read more »

    Todd Sanderson
    Guest
    Todd Sanderson

    THis is all good but who and what can we do about it? with Tyrants like Maura Healy in Massachusetts buying an activist judge to uphold her ban say that Assualt weapons are not covered by the second amendment. who do we fight these criminals?

    Melissa
    Guest
    Melissa

    I take exception to the contention that some people shouldn’t have had access to weapons to begin with. Free people have a right to keep and near arms, and that should include people who have walked out the gates of prisons or mental facilities. You wouldn’t DARE infringe their rights to free speech or religion! If they’re dangerous, keep them locked up, or they WILL find a way!

    Ranchdude
    Guest
    Ranchdude

    I keep seeing these articles claiming that the origin of the term “assault rifle” is unknown/unclear. If you want to know the origin you just need to read history, Adolf Hitler called the MP43/44 the Sturmgewehr, or “Assault Rifle”… A fully automatic rifle. The legal definition of the word “assault” is lost on most people as well. It doesn’t mean “to attack”, it means to “threaten to attack”… So that explains the scary black guns which “threaten to attack” but that doesn’t mean they can do so on their own, it’s takes an operator to make it “battery” which is… Read more »

    L.L. Smith
    Guest
    L.L. Smith

    Let me see if I am right. If law abiding citizens are disarmed then only the criminals and the government will be armed but I may be repeating myself.
    The government doesn’t trust me but I am supposed to trust them. That gets more difficult daily.

    James Andrews
    Guest
    James Andrews

    I agree L.L. Smith! Great post!

    J
    Guest
    J

    Why can’t I legally own a bazooka, an rpg or a hand grenade?

    Trebor Snevets
    Guest
    Trebor Snevets

    The same reason you can’t own a nuclear device.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @J and TS, You can not own a bazooka because there has never been a bazooka in the US armament inventory. You can own a 3.5 inch rocket launcher tube. You can own an RPG, and you can own a hand grenade. You can even own the explosive. But the various detonating devices for these implements, you will never get your hands on.
    You could own a nuclear device, in theory, but as a financial matter you can not afford it or the maintenance and security. Most countries can not afford a nuclear device, or the maintenance and security.

    Nobody cares
    Guest
    Nobody cares

    If they want your guns they’ll take them. And you’ll give them up or you’ll be imprisoned and or shot. And I will snitch on you for no profit at all.

    G-man
    Guest
    G-man

    Sounds like you just don’t like this country even though It affords you the freedom to express your thoughts without fear of someone knocking on your door to haul you off , and as far as snitching, people that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks , yore the guy thatrats out your neighbor for not recycling……thats sad

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @G-man, It is not difficult to figure out who is a snitch. And we all know how long snitches last.

    James Higginbotham
    Guest
    James Higginbotham

    really.
    do you have any CLUE of what happens to SNITCHES?
    they DON’T live very long fellow.
    and they ALWAYS get found out.

    James Andrews
    Guest
    James Andrews

    If things get that bad, you sheep will be the ones first arrested and jailed…..at least the rest of us have a chance.

    WASP
    Guest
    WASP

    Snitches get stitches! And don’t forget, Nobody cares.

    Nomen Ignotus
    Guest
    Nomen Ignotus

    A little research often helps …..WW1 …”Assault troops ” from Germany …used in 1918 …. where the termed “Storm trooper” came from …then in WW2 .. the Germans developed a semi and full auto smaller cartridge military rifle and named it an “assault Rifle ” ( Sturm Gewehr or Stg 44 ) for propaganda purposes …In the 1960’s Armalite developed the AR 10 ( .308 ) and then AR15 ( .223) semi automatic rifles which were modified to become full auto military versions ( M 16 in .223 ) . The AR rifles ( for Armalite ) were then commonly… Read more »

    roger g
    Guest
    roger g

    One thing is for certain ,if the day comes when they try to confiscate guns you can be DAMNED sure “they ” won’t be the ones trying ! Instead “they ” ,the DAMNED dems/libs will be hiding behind their ARMED security . F**king COWARDS !

    willford
    Guest
    willford

    So my comments have to be moderated now, Or am I barred?

    willford
    Guest
    willford

    All firearm laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, males 16-45=militia. “Regulated”=Trained, Law Abiding Citizens “GOD GIVEN RIGHTS”, IMO

    Jim Sutherlin
    Guest
    Jim Sutherlin

    This website blocks comments.

    Jim Sutherlin
    Guest
    Jim Sutherlin

    ustice Scalia continued with “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Facts: District of Columbia v. Heller

    Within the court’s prepared opinion Justice Scalia went on to write “we also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said (reading opinion), as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’ (time of constitution) 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, that is not what Scalia meant by common use at the time or that is what he would have said. Your addition of a parenthetical is a twist of the truth. You have failed in your attempt to deceive.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    I apologize for the long answer but it is important to clarify what has been settled by the Supreme Court regarding this issue. On June 26 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in the District of Columbia v. Heller case over the District of Columbia banning hand guns in private homes. This has provided a benchmark for lower courts to rule on regarding the individual’s Constitutional right to bear arms since. Republican Justice Antonin Scalia (Ronald Reagan appointee) wrote the courts prepared majority opinion that provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual’s right to bear arms… Read more »

    Tannim
    Guest
    Tannim

    Read holding #3 In Heller and get back to us with a clue.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Tannim, You are quite correct. Holding “… 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly CHOOSE [caps added for emphasis. ed.] for the lawful purpose of self-defense…” The court used the word choose which is in the present tense. The court could not possibly have been protecting firearms from the time of the founders, only.
    Jim is a first rung propagandist or a poor reader/understander.

    James Higginbotham
    Guest
    James Higginbotham

    the Supreme Court is NOT the last say on what is CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT.
    that lays with WE THE PEOPLE, AND CONSTITUTION.
    and the CONSTITUTION itself, is the FINAL SAY., DO NOT INFRINGE, AND CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, means the SAME TODAY AS THEN.
    NOT A BUNCH OF BLACK ROBED PETTY TYRANTS.
    and HISTORY BACK THIS UP.

    Garry Hoffman, Justice ret
    Guest
    Garry Hoffman, Justice ret

    Umm, Hey Jim, I’ve done some pretty extensive research in this area, but I’ve yet to find a mention anywhere of any military using AR15 rifles in any service at any time… Care to enlighten us? “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause…But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” DC vs… Read more »

    2WarAbnVet
    Guest
    2WarAbnVet

    Actually, Semi auto firearms have been in public circulation for more than 100 years – the Winchester 07 went on the market in 1906, an even earlier the Remington 08 was introduced as the Remington Autoloading Rifle in 1905.

    lbrac
    Guest
    lbrac

    Self-loading ( semi-automatic) firearms were commercially available before 1905. The first semi-automatic rifle, a Mannlicher, was introduced in 1885; the first semi-automatic pistol, a Schoenberger, was introduced in 1892; and the first semi-automatic shotgun, the Browning Auto 5, was available in 1902.

    Per the NRA: “Semi-automatics account for about 20 percent of the 300 million privately-owned firearms in the United States and the percentage is quickly rising, because semi-automatics now account for about 50 percent of all new firearms bought annually. Americans bought about five million new semi-automatics in 2012.”

    The Surprised - Not
    Guest
    The Surprised - Not

    A left wing government activist judge, deciding pro left wing government activist policy. Surprise, surprise, surprise! “King George III is well within his rights regarding his actions against his subjects in the North American colonies!” ruled the King George III appointed judge. This is my shocked face! What happened to impeaching a judge for, as our Constitution states…”Bad Behavior”?

    revjen45
    Guest
    revjen45

    A Federal judge is just a .gov shyster in a black robe, so don’t expect anything they do to make sense.
    Obviously their functional paradigm is “Take a position, then fashion a rationale to fit the conclusion.”

    James Andrews
    Guest
    James Andrews

    Exactly……this is a true article…..and these moronic, leftist judges don’t even know what an assault weapon is, as there is no such thing!

    Doc
    Guest
    Doc

    Ammoland:
    Please have these articles proofread, edited by an educated
    native speaker of our language who is versed in traditional
    logic and reasoning.

    Tannim
    Guest
    Tannim

    With the errors in your post, that excludes you.

    Robert
    Guest
    Robert

    Fine. However, semi-automatic firearms have been available to civilians for 118 years–not “60.”

    Laddyboy
    Guest
    Laddyboy

    One correction in the above op-ed. The Second Amendment RESTATES that Americans have the RIGHT of SELF DEFENSE – – – BEFORE the Constitution was written. The FOUNDING FATHERS in the FEDERALIST PAPERS stated that WE the PEOPLE have the RIGHT to have the same MILITARY grade weaponry as the Military uses. This means We the PEOPLE have the RIGHT to posses and bear AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. It does not matter what the DemocRATic communist/muslem party, ‘nwo’, ‘cfr’
    or the ‘trilateral’ cabals say!!!!!

    Just1Saddletramp
    Guest
    Just1Saddletramp

    Anti-gun activists state that the Second Amendment applies only the the weapons of that period, i.e. flintlock muskets and flintlock rifles, not “military” or “assault” weapons such as the AR-15. Very interesting and hypocritical, since flintlock rifles were the “military” and “assault” weapons of their day.

    jojhn
    Guest
    jojhn

    and the 1st amendment now covers the internet, TV, email, what have ya

    James Andrews
    Guest
    James Andrews

    Exactly…good post.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Laddyboy, I have searched the Federalist Papers and can not find that. There are implications in 28, 29, and 46, but not clear language. So if you could tell me which you are reading from, I would be most appreciative.

    Terry Long
    Guest
    Terry Long

    “On Friday, April 6, 2018, U.S. District Judge William Young said assault weapons are military firearms and aren’t protected by the constitutional right to “bear arms.””

    Judge Young couldn’t be more wrong. Military style weapons are protected by the 2A because they are military style. In 1938 the sawed-off shotgun was outlawed because “it has no practical use in the military” or in warfare and is therefore not covered by the 2A.

    Jim Sutherlin
    Guest
    Jim Sutherlin

    From the case the author of this article incorrectly quoted. Within the court’s prepared opinion Justice Scalia went on to write “we also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said (reading opinion), as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’ (time of constitution) 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Justice Scalia continued with “It may be objected that if weapons that are… Read more »