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 .

  • 39 thoughts on “An “Assault Weapons” Ban Does Indeed Violate The Second Amendment

    1. 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?

    2. 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!

    3. 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 the physical act that results in that harmful or offensive contact.

      So it would seem that what the anti-gunners are really afraid of are Battery Guns lol…

    4. 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.

        1. @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.

    5. 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.

      1. 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

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

    6. 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 misnamed as “assault rifles ” … because of the “AR” designation and the desire to scare the uninformed .

    7. 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 !

    8. 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

    9. 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.

    10. 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.’”

      1. @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.

    11. 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 as protected by the Second Amendment. District Court for the District of Columbia ruling was reversed.

      The courts holding was “The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.”

      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 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 as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. 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.”

      The author of this article is wrong on many fronts especially with his use of ‘common use’. The ruling settles the issue that there cannot be an outright ban on guns or these rights but does clarify that military style weapons (AK-47, AR-15, M-16, etc.) are not covered under the 2nd Amendment.

        1. @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.

      1. 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.

      2. 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 Heller
        In relation to “arms suitable to use by a militia”, (US vs Miller)
        “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun
        having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable
        relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that
        the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly, it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment
        or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”,…[the court] did not suggest that the person in possession of the arm must be a member of the militia, asking only whether the arm could have militia use.’
        The opinion held that since the shotgun had no military use, it was not protected by the 2nd A [in error, as trench guns of similar design day were in use].

        So, in sum, “We are far from defining this inalienable preexisting right of “The People”, the Second Amendment is the modern civil rights movement. It has been formally recognized as “fundamental,” but is still finding its place within a fully-integrated Bill of Rights.” Paloma Capanna, Esq.
        Justice Thomas recently characterized it as “this Court’s constitutional orphan.”
        Silvester v. Becerra, 583 U.S. ___, p.13 (2018, Thomas
        J., dissenting) (per curiam), citing Heller, supra, at 634.
        Garry Hoffman, Director
        Gun Owners of America, New York
        co-plaintiff, Robinson vs Sessions, (below)
        https://law-policy.com/2018/04/petition-to-scotus-filed-in-robinson-v-sessions/

    12. 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.

      1. 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.”

    13. 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”?

    14. 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.”

      1. 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!

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

    16. 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!!!!!

      1. 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.

      2. @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.

    17. “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.

      1. 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 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.

    Leave a Comment 39 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *