CPRC on the Frank Beckman Show on WJR radio to talk about a proposed “assault weapon” ban in Michigan

25 Oct , 2016  

WJR_logo

Dr. John Lott talked to Frank Beckman on his show on the 50,000 Watt WJR in Detroit about a new bill introduced in the Michigan legislature that would ban virtually all semi-automatic guns.

The bill defines an assault weapon as a semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle capable of using detachable magazines, trigger pistol grips, shoulder stocks, barrel shrouds, muzzle brakes or commentators, and shotguns with detachable magazines or revolving cylinders. . . .

(Tuesday, October 25, 2016 from 9:35 to 10:00 AM)

 


One Response

  1. David M. Bennett says:

    Those opposed to private ownership of semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines, which they themselves often helpfully define as proper military weapons, have a problem in that many state constitutional provisions are stronger with respect to RTKBA than the federal constitution. Take our good state for example. In Article I, Section 6, of the Michigan Constitution, personal ownership of suitable military arms is implicitly protected:

    CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

    § 6 Bearing of arms. Sec. 6.

    Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

    History: Const. 1963, Art. I, § 6, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964

    The part relevant to this ill-conceived assault weapons ban is: “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of . . . the state.”

    It would be disingenuous to argue that revolvers, duck guns and squirrel rifles are the types of arms which every person has the right to bear in the (thankfully) unlikely event the people are called upon to defend, with their own lives, the State during a dire and catastrophic emergency.

    Michigan’s Constitution was adopted in modern-times (1963) when semiautomatic rifles and pistols with detachable high-capacity magazines were readily available to all civilians. Unlike the 2nd Amendment, there is no controversial ‘well-regulated militia’ clause in Michigan’s RTKBA provision by which antis would argue the right only belonged to those actively serving in a state militia. It is therefore unclear how those who propose such bans would pass constitutional muster.

    Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming also have similar constitutional provisions explicitly protecting the right of its people to keep arms suitable for defense of their state.

Leave a Reply

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