We at Regulate Assault Weapons.org are not against guns, or gun owners. Many of us own guns ourselves. We believe in and support the Second Amendment.
We are not calling for confiscation of any legally purchased weapons.
Assault style weapons have been legal to buy in most states since the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004. We are not advocating any retroactive prohibition. We, however, would like to see the purchase ban re-instituted on a Federal level. It is our opinion that these assault style weapons are too powerful and too dangerous to be offered for sale to the public.
The court added an exception to the ruling writing that citizens can be prohibited from owning the weapons that did not provided the owner with a “law-abiding purpose”. This was an extension of a well-established 1939 Supreme Court decision. (United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174)
In the judgement for the above referenced Heller case, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia expanded on the where the courts found the balance between limiting and preserving this right. The courts view has been presented in the case as affirming that weapons that are designed for use in self-defense are protected while tanks, missiles and other offensive weapons are not protected. This is why the first assault weapons ban was never overturned. It has been ruled bu the supreme court that it was not the founders intent to see military style offensive weapons in the hands of citizens.
How this does this apply to America today? Where should we draw the line on guns? We believe and the courts have ruled, that the defensive characteristics of a weapon determines its suitability for civilian ownership.
And how this applies to “Assault Rifles”? According to Noah Feldman senior fellow at Harvard, “Today, [the list of defensive weapons] … includes handguns. But it doesn’t include assault rifles. They’re great for military purposes, and no doubt fun to shoot on the range. But they aren’t designed for self-defense, almost by definition.”