Biden says US is at ‘tipping point’ on gun control: ‘We will ban assault weapons in this country’

Authored by independent.co.uk and submitted by Beckles28nz

Sign up for the daily Inside Washington email for exclusive US coverage and analysis sent to your inbox Get our free Inside Washington email Please enter a valid email address Please enter a valid email address SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy notice Thanks for signing up to the

Inside Washington email {{ #verifyErrors }} {{ message }} {{ /verifyErrors }} {{ ^verifyErrors }} Something went wrong. Please try again later {{ /verifyErrors }}

Despite the lack of sufficient support in Congress to pass a new assault weapons ban, President Joe Biden on Friday said the US has “reached a tipping point” in the fight to strengthen America’s gun laws, due to the activism of the gun violence prevention movement that has gathered increasing strength in recent years.

Mr Biden, who was delivering remarks at the National Safer Communities Summit in Hartford, Connecticut, at the invitation of Senator Chris Murphy and a coalition of gun safety groups including Everytown, Moms Demand Action and Giffords, recounted some of the more than 20 executive actions his administration has taken to stem the tide of mass shootings since he took office. He said those politicians who claim to be concerned about crime should realise that crime can’t be tackled without dealing with gun violence.

The president also lamented how since 2020, firearms have been the leading cause of death for children in the United States — more than automobile accidents or cancer.

He recalled how the assault weapons ban he wrote into the 1994 crime bill enacted under then-president Bill Clinton cut mass shootings “significantly” only to see their number triple when Mr Clinton’s successor, George W Bush, allowed the ban to expire with the aid of a Republican Congress, allowing military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines to “come back into vogue”.

Mr Biden also called for a repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which immunises gun manufacturers from lawsuits filed by gun violence victims, and for the enactment of universal background checks before anyone can purchase high-powered rifles, many of which are modelled off of those issued to American soldiers, as well as safe storage requirements for such weapons.

“The United States of America has the finest fighting force in the history of the world [and] provides … service members with the most lethal weapons on Earth. We also require them to receive significant training before they’re allowed to use them. We require extensive background checks and mental health assessment that before they can … use them [and] require them to lock them up or store the weapon responsibly,” he said.

“Every gun owner should be required to have the same requirements held to him or her,” he added.

The president also hailed governors who have taken action to strengthen state gun laws, including Connecticut’s Ned Lamont, who recently signed more than 12 separate bills to strengthen his state’s firearm regulations, and praised state governments in Illinois and Washington for passing assault weapon and ghost gun bans, as well as the 21 states that have enacted so-called “red flag” laws to allow courts to temporarily disarm people who are determined to pose a risk to the community by a judge.

Though chances of a federal assault weapons ban making it to his desk are slim to none given the composition of Congress, Mr Biden promised the gun safety advocates that he will “never stop fighting”.

“We will ban assault weapons in this country … we will hold gun makers liable, we will beat the gun industry,” he said.

GlobalPhreak on June 17th, 2023 at 01:41 UTC »

No, we won't. Not with the current House, Senate and Supreme Court.

In fact, look at the Supreme Court rulings since the last AWB expired in 2004:

DC vs. Heller, 2008: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

"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 for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 2010: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

"the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense"

(this case was necessary because D.C. is not a state)

Caetano vs. Massachusetts (2016) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen

"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.' We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."[24]"

So, New Yorkers no longer need to show "special need" when applying for a concealed carry permit, changing the rules from a "may issue" permitting state to a "shall issue" state.

But as a bonus, they set this standard for future rulings:

"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"

So, when you take all these rulings together:

Americans have the inherent right to self defense outside militia service, you can't restrict entire classes of weapons, and those weapons aren't limited to what was available when the 2nd Amendment was written.

In light of these rulings, even the OLD AWB would have been struck down.

PaisleyComputer on June 16th, 2023 at 23:45 UTC »

Can I just see a medical professional without a lifetime of debt please?

regularclump on June 16th, 2023 at 21:19 UTC »

Sure do that. Then the 6-3 Supreme Court will permanently invalidate it.