Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt
I thought it was that there was no such thing as an "assault weapon", rather that "assault rifle" is the correct terminology, but also that the weapons banned aren't even assault rifles in that they don't have the selective fire capability the the military rifles do. I've just barely dipped my toes into the world of firearms, so feel free to correct me when I'm wrong.
Also if you wouldn't mind explaining, what specifically makes this bill so different from the original one that passed so as to spur the supreme court to throw it out? Obviously some bolt action rifles are now included, which seems ludicrous.. are they worried about somebody sniping Obama or something? Sheesh...
|
Assault weapon and assault rifle are both incorrect. It's like saying this is a "stabbing knife". Any knife can be used for stabbing. Any gun can be used to assault or to defend. The terms "semi-automatic rifle" or "fully-automatic rifle" are correct.
I haven't read both bills so I can't speak to what is different, but I can say that the Supreme Court is different. During the Clinton administration, the USSC wouldn't even hear a case about whether gun ownership was an individual right. The current Supreme Court very recently ruled that it was indeed an individual right.
If this law is signed into law by the next Congress and president, it will be shot down by the USSC.