McKenna: Lawmakers in Washington would ban rapid-fire weapons at their political peril
Jun 25, 2016, 12:30 AM
It’s tough not notice the gun-control debate that continues to rage on around the country, especially with the recent House sit-in held by Democrats mid-week. With so much being talked about right now one issue that gun-rights advocates argue violates their rights under the Second Amendment was almost overshadowed.
A challenge to state laws banning the sale of rapid-fire assault weapons was turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court issued no opinion after dismissing the appeals from advocates in New York and Connecticut, which could clear the way for individual states to issue stricter gun-control laws, former Attorney General Rob McKenna told 成人X站 Radio’s Dave Ross.
Ross: The Founding Fathers may have screwed up if we can鈥檛 agree on gun control
What does it mean for Washington? Could the state issue its own assault weapons ban?
It does from a federal standpoint, McKenna explained. However, it “might be a different question under the state Constitution.”
“Certainly a legislative body at the state level can consider that kind of rule,” he said. But “they would do so understanding the political peril.”
The Court’s refusal to consider gun-rights advocates’ arguments fits in line with previous decisions. Justices struck down ordinances in 2008 and 2010 that would have banned possession of handguns at private residences.
“They drew a line and said that goes to far,” McKenna explained.
However, they would not protect other rights and have refused to hear arguments over the right to carry weapons in public and purchasing rapid-fire weapons.
Dave wonders what gives the court the right to draw the line at handguns. Plenty of people agree someone shouldn’t own a rocket launched, but a rifle isn’t just for mass murder, he pointed out. They are used for target practice and hunting — as well as home protection.
What is it about these “assault rifles” that would make the Supreme Court reject this appeal? Dave asked.
“Presumably, it was the rapid-fire nature of the weapon,” McKenna said. “A weapon that can shoot 30 rounds a minute can do an extreme amount of damage … it’s a little hard to justify needing to shoot that much while you’re hunting deer.”
McKenna is skeptical when and if Washington will ever have a ban on rapid-fire weapons. One reason there isn’t much gun control in the legislation is because there are a number of lawmakers, including Democrats, who don’t support it — their constituents don’t support it, he said.
Only time will tell if the massacre in a gay nightclub in Orlando will change anyone’s mind.
Related: Congress just gave the bad guys the green light
