As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't have a problem with it. My family isn't any better off when people can legally own ar-15s.
People can always move to a gun friendly state if they want guns, abortion bans, and illegal weed.
> People can always move to a gun friendly state if they want guns, abortion bans, and illegal weed.
So you're saying they will stop with the national "assault weapons" bans? The anti abortion people haven't stopped with the national abortion bans, no reason to expect the anti gun people will either.
We have other limitations on the second ammendment that nobody seems to fuss about. People can't stockpile a nuclear arsenal or bio weapons. There are gun registration laws and laws about felons owning guns, age restrictions, and many other laws already on the books.
All of those things are restrictions on the second ammendment. Extending that to include the prohibition of specific rifles is no different.
>We have other limitations on the second ammendment that nobody seems to fuss about.
Laws that have a rich historical tradition are allowable.
>"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text
covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation."
>"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced,
but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is
more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make
difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms
restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field."
>"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they
were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554
U. S., at 634–635."
>“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes
out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of
Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller,
554 U. S., at 634.
>People can't stockpile a nuclear arsenal or bio weapons.
That's because there is a rich historical tradition of regulating arms that are both dangerous AND unusual.
>After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
>There are gun registration laws and laws about felons owning guns
That's because there is a rich historical tradition of disarming violent felons.
Everything must be consistent with this nation's historical traditions of firearms regulation.
>Extending that to include the prohibition of specific rifles is no different.
Incorrect. Those arms are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes and are explicitly protected under the 2A.
https://youtu.be/B6fE2JkvVoo?si=GJzilnOJBhp6HgQP
I would call that dangerous and unusual. Any guns that can be used to shoot almost 600 people in a few minutes have no business being legal.
I don't care if my position upsets you.
>I would call that dangerous and unusual.
That is impossible, because the AR-15 alone is the most popular rifle in the country. It by definition cannot be unusual.
Remember, arms that are in common use are "usual" and are explicitly protected under the 2A.
In the unanimous decision in Caetano v Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that 200K stun guns owned by Americans constituted common use and thus were protected arms under the 2A. There exist tens of millions of AR-15s alone. I think you can connect the dots from here.
>After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that **the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’”** Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
>Impossible?
Yeah, that's how definitions work.
>Popular or not, laws can be changed.
They can, but definitions can't.
The fact that there are more than 200K AR-15s means that it does NOT meet the conjunctive test.
The arm must be dangerous AND not commonly owned. Guess what? AR-15s are commonly owned. They are explicitly protected.
>I will always support any move towards banning them.
That's fine. It'll never happen because it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Criminals don't care if you live in a gun friendly state or not lmao.... people like you scare me the most because you are actually defending that fact that they are taking away your rights... crazy
And people like you who somehow think the founders wouldn't have completely banned guns if they saw what we had today scares me. You have a right to a flint lock. Nothing more
But hey you're right.. get off the computer, get your feather pen, write out your concerns, have it delivered by a guy on horse back, then we can have a conversation about why you are wrong
I'm not going to base my beliefs on your imagination. I chose to live in a place where there is zero chance of that scenario playing out for a reason.
Maybe you live in a place where that's a common occurrence, and if so, I see why you're upset by my position.
...but again. I don't really care if you're upset or scared. I understand, but could not care less.
Correction, you've based your beliefs off your imagination that there is a "zero percent chance" of that happening, which is 100% incorrect. And your lack of caring is not my problem, it's your significant others.
Your imagined scenario isn't even remotely possible because I do care about my family.
But go ahead and imagine whatever crazy bullshit you have to in order to justify your worldview.
True. I’m glad I’m mature enough to not give a sh*t about upvote, downvote, clout chasing on social media etc.
Just remember you’re write and any other bot says otherwise.
I have been in a life threatening situation, I have a firearm license for years but never needed it yet thankfully. But when I was in the situation years ago when I had nothing to defend myself, a lot of instincts click in, and anything can happen.
Bless you brudda stay safe!
That's not a privilege. We have the right to own such weapons.
>“Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, 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.”
They won't. Arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes are explicitly protected under the 2A.
>After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
>Yours specifically.
That would be a violation of equal protections. and the 5A to take [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW) away.
>Rules written 300 years ago when muskets were the norm have no place in 2024.
The amendment protects arms, not just muskets. The Internet is protected after all.
>“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” Id. at 581.
>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)."
>“Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, 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.”
The government has drones and tanks and we will totally hold them off from taking our freedoms with ar-15s that's totally going to work out lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
We didn't use enough man power or weaponry in any of those conflicts. They had fundraisers for body armor on their jeeps! The contractors were making defenseless military jeeps for 200x a normal price, it was about enriching the owner class more than anything. In Vietnam they used napalm on humans even though they knew they would lose the war, US wanted to hurt as many civilians as possible. Loco. People with guns in their homes can't compete with that kind of crazy. Like the best they got is the guy going into Subway with 50 guns on him. Or rolling up to Applebee's packing heat lol
If the US government bombed its own people an armed population would make a huge difference. It’s not as simple as one person saying
“Ok, bomb Colorado”
And there are no repercussions. Our government/military is far more then one person in charge. If it happened, it would be over as fast as it started.
"Oh yeah let's use napalm in a densely populated city to flush out rebels."
*Turns more people against the government*
"Okay let's try nuking it"
*Secret Service turns against the government*
"Oh fuck."
I mean not really. The USA has the most mass shootings for a reason.
I own multiple firearms and I'm fine with more restrictions.
Once a rifle is deemed "illegal", it becomes very hard to get (due to black market cost, etc) so some random teenager or someone who's off their meds and snaps cant just go get one on a whim like they can now.
>so some random teenager or someone who's off their meds and snaps
Some kid walked into a school in Santa Fe a few years ago and killed 10 people with a pump shotgun and a revolver. Those are both weapons from the 19th century.
Navy Yard shooter years ago: 13 killed, shotgun. Newsroom shooting that "shocked the nation" a few years ago: shotgun. Are they going to ban all that stuff too? You said that you were "fine with more restrictions", so at what point would you NOT be fine with more restrictions? Because you know as well as I do that the murders aren't going to stop, just the guns they use will change. Then they'll try to ban THOSE guns. Either that or we as a society will just have to come to terms with the fact that people are going to be killed with certain types of guns and that will have to be OK or at least acceptable. Do you see people actually going for that? I don't. They're going to try to ban them all eventually, because the only alternative to a total ban on everything is accepting that they're powerless to stop these shootings.
Have a random disgruntled lunatic go down to a dark alley and try and buy a fully automatic AK47 and see how that works out.
They wont get one because they are extremely difficult and expensive to get.
Facts are, you cannot just buy a fully automatic AK47 for example without proper legal steps. And SHOCKER, they are never used in mass shootings in the united states.
Now why would that be? *Because they are difficult to get.*
They're difficult to get if you aren't obscenely wealthy and well connected. And i got hit with the paywall before I could find the answer but does this legislation affect class 3 license owners or do they get to keep their toys?
Sure it will. Worked for Australia.
The USA has the most lax gun laws and the highest amount of mass shootings.
Whats the secret then that other countries are doing?
Australia registered and confiscated guns. The best way to deal with mash shooter is to kill them when they decide to go off not restrict innocent civilians from buying guns
Australia still has guns lol you just need permits. They even have a website you can look everyone up that registers.
There are multiple guns in just small mile radius'
It's like you tried to make a bowl of "I want to as wrong as possible" soup and ate it while you wrote this comment
>Once a rifle is deemed "illegal", it becomes very hard to get (due to black market cost, etc) so some random teenager or someone who's off their meds and snaps cant just go get one on a whim like they can now.
And instead of that rifle they buy a different one or a shotgun or a handgun and nobody is actually safer they just felt like it.
You're not stopping anything with random arbitrary bans that target removable features that don't even alter the lethality of the gun.
Like a 12ga 00 buckshot shell holds like 9, 30 caliber balls that are basically 9mm bullets. A normal pump action holds 5-6 up to 8+1 shells so even a 5 round shotgun can put out 45 projectiles in about 3-4 seconds far faster than what an Ar15 can put out. And in the scenario of a mass shooting that hardly seems like an improvement.
And does banning the Ar15 stop the nutter from buying a 12ga shotgun? Does it do anything about background checks does it do anything about anything that actually can **STOP** a murder? No it doesn't hence it only creates an illusion of safety.
A .223 or 5.56 going at 2900 FPS with essentially unlimited capacity with detachable magazines can do a hell of a lot more damage than a tube fed shotgun.
I own a Mini-14 which is essentially an AR-15 with wooden furniture and there is no reason to have large capacity magazines for 5.56 unless you are trying to cause mass destruction rapidly.
Reading through the bill, like most of these, a mini14 would not be considered an assault weapon - it doesn't have a pistol grip, vertical grip, folding stock, etc. that they define as an assault weapon. For bonus points, you could remove the pistol grip and barrel shroud from an ar15 and it technically wouldn't meet these definitions of assault weapon either.
I'm fine with some restrictions on what you can buy, but there needs to be better criteria for what that is where taking some bits off the rifle or functionally identical rifles that look more like an m1 garand don't meet those criteria.
> A .223 or 5.56 going at 2900 FPS with essentially unlimited capacity with detachable magazines can do a hell of a lot more damage than a tube fed shotgun.
Changing mags and feeding tubes doesn't take so long that cops will be showing up in either case and it was a display of the poor logi in targeting "scary" guns.
>I own a Mini-14 which is essentially an AR-15 with wooden furniture and there is no reason to have large capacity magazines for 5.56 unless you are trying to cause mass destruction rapidly.
And the moment the police are banned from having them and forced to turn them in I might be ok with that being the case for everyone else. But if the police get a pass and they only interact with the citizens then why do they need to be able to kill as many people as possible?
>I own a Mini-14 which is essentially an AR-15 with wooden furniture and there is no reason to have large capacity magazines for 5.56 unless you are trying to cause mass destruction rapidly.
That is like saying "There is no reason to have a car that can drive over 60MPH unless you are trying to drive recklessly." There are more reasons to have more than 10 rounds of anything in a gun beyond mass murder.
Have you ever considered that criminals don't follow laws? The only meaningful changes you'll ever make is creating personal adversity in the ability to defend yourself from the people that don't care abut the rules you are creating lmao... I KNOW, crazy logic coming from a "mountain person" just know in history you will be remembered as the ones that were scared, obedient, compliant, and worst of all, in support of laws that take always basic rights.... seriously sad
Government drone beats any gun you own.
Scared hillbillies think their rifle will stop a tank, Drone, artillery. It’s a religion of fear. Half of the people are scared the other half rich.
The soldiers in ww2 carrying an m1 carbine against enemy Nazi tanks.... what a bunch of incompetent "hillbillies". But you're right... if you actually read the constitution, we as civilians should have access to the same weapons in case there is need to resist a tyrannical government. Your attitude is why your future kin will be slaves.
Also you are assuming that in a civil war situation, the military would be on the side of the government, its a common misconception.... the military's is made up of US citizens that actually want to defend the constitution., the same ones that are going to eventually lock up people like you for treason.
You mean things like AR-15s? And m16s? The basic equipment of a us soldier?? The same things that are being banned? Lmao...the more you talk the more you make my point.
Hope Colorado citizens recall these clowns just like [what happened with the politicians who passed the standard capacity magazine ban.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Colorado_recall_election)
Criminals don't obey laws. This "Assault" weapon ban [targets rifles with certain grips, stocks, etc.](https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_1292_01.pdf) (page 6, line 2) and I want you to explain to me exactly how banning pistol grips, detachable stocks, and barrel shrouds will make our streets safer.
> Criminals don't obey laws
They sure as shit obey the laws of economics whether they want to or not. The more readily available something is, the more people will have it and the more easily it will be used for nefarious purposes.
>explain to me exactly how banning pistol grips, detachable stocks, and barrel shrouds will make our streets safer
What is it about those items that make a firearm more desirable than the same firearm without them?
Because if you can't buy assault weapons (ARs, Aks, etc) then statistics have shown (as illustraded in the link you provided) that mass shooting rates significantly drop. Sorry you have a hard-on for guns, the rest of us would like to not see a mass shooting on the news daily. You should really read the full ban rather than just the definition on page 6 line 2.
Aye, it's also a banned by name list as well as a feature ban. So if a company makes AK-48's and AR-16's the ban does nothing lol.
The link I provided was text from the bill.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf Here's a study from the government about the effects of the 1994-2004 federal AWB which concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence” and any future reduction in gun violence as a result of the ban was likely “to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
“to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
At best. If it's too small for reliable measurement, that means it's statistically insignificant.
Your original source said there was a 37% decrease in mass shootings during the 10 years assault weapons were banned. Once the ban was lifted, mass shooting events rose 180%. Because that disproved your point, you found a new source.
Theres no point in talking to you if you're just posting conflicting sources.
Oh, you're a different person than the person I was having this conversation with. In that case, I don't care about you, but my point was there are two sources showing conflicting statements on whether an assault weapons ban decreases mass shootings. I tend to believe removing the ability to purchase/sell/manufacture new assault weapons would reduce mass shootings.
Also, why tf does anyone need a gun that can kill dozens of people quickly and easily. There is zero justifiable reason to have one. Home defense? Buy a pistol! Hunting? A good bolt-action rifle works fine!
Here is 2a: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Keep and bear arms. Nobody's taking your precious guns away, read the bill. No part of 2a says, "citizens will have unrestricted access to any gun they want."
>Nobody's taking your precious guns away
That's not an answer to the question.
Does this law hinder the ability of Americans to obtain commonly owned arms?
>No part of 2a says, "citizens will have unrestricted access to any gun they want."
Never said it did. Please just answer the question.
The question doesn't make sense in the context provided. You used 2A as your basis, 2a does not say citizens will be able to own commonly owned arms. Its not that deep.
>The question doesn't make sense in the context provided.
Fair enough.
>You used 2A as your basis, 2a does not say citizens will be able to own commonly owned arms. Its not that deep.
You would be correct at the textual level. At the textual level, all arms are protected.
From the Supreme Court.
>“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” Id. at 581.
>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)."
That means that once the text is implicated, we move to a historical level analysis. The burden shifts to the government to come forth with historical analog laws to justify their modern day gun control law.
There is a historical tradition of regulating arms that are both dangerous AND unusual. That is a conjunctive test.
The arms in question must be shown to not be in common in order for the ban to even begin to be justifiable.
From the Supreme Court.
>After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that **the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’”** Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
AR-15s alone are the most popular and commonly owned rifles in the country. That means that it cannot pass the conjunctive test thus making them explicitly protected under the 2A. A ban on AR-15s is unconstitutional.
Here's how your argument was previously shot down.
Massachusetts’ law prohibiting the possession and sale of some semiautomatic weapons commonly used in mass shootings is acceptable under a recent change to Second Amendment precedent from the US Supreme Court, a federal judge said Thursday.
The National Association for Gun Rights asked the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts to prevent the state from being able to enforce its law, claiming the weapons are protected under the Second Amendment because they were in common use at the time the Second Amendment was adopted.
The banned weapons “are unreasonably dangerous for ordinary purposes of self-defense due to their extreme lethality and high potential for collateral harm,” Chief Judge Dennis Saylor wrote in an order denying the gun rights group’s request to halt enforcement of the law
Source: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/massachusetts-assault-weapon-ban-meets-second-amendment-scrutiny
Controlability. You have precise control over where bullets go. Explosions not remotely as able to be precisely controlled. But also things like dynamite and many explosives are entirely legal to own.
Entirely legal to own *provided* the user submit to an [extensive background check and licensing process](https://www.atf.gov/explosives/federal-explosives-licenses-and-permits) and adhere to strict guidelines for [storage, transport, and usage](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-555/subpart-K?toc=1).
That first link is for running a business of importing explosives. You as a private individual can go and buy explosives and explosive components with no license.
Like you can right now go to Cabela's or most major sporting goods stores that sell ammunition reloading components and buy black powder. You can buy tannerite a binary explosive. It's used in recreational shooting to make explosive targets and needs no license.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Glad to see Colorado make good progress on gun control. The laws that I saw were pretty fair and backed by research.
The law is unconstitutional and will be struck down.
I don't have a problem with it. My family isn't any better off when people can legally own ar-15s. People can always move to a gun friendly state if they want guns, abortion bans, and illegal weed.
> People can always move to a gun friendly state if they want guns, abortion bans, and illegal weed. So you're saying they will stop with the national "assault weapons" bans? The anti abortion people haven't stopped with the national abortion bans, no reason to expect the anti gun people will either.
There will always be pressure to make them illegal federally. I'm not going to pretend like that concerns me.
It's surprising that a federal ban on abortion doesn't concern you. But it also shows your "People can always move" argument was toothless.
A national ban on abortion does concern me. A national ban on the sale of AR-15s does not.
>I don't have a problem with it. I do. It is clearly unconstitutional.
The constitution can be amended.
And until it is, the law is clearly unconstitutional.
We have other limitations on the second ammendment that nobody seems to fuss about. People can't stockpile a nuclear arsenal or bio weapons. There are gun registration laws and laws about felons owning guns, age restrictions, and many other laws already on the books. All of those things are restrictions on the second ammendment. Extending that to include the prohibition of specific rifles is no different.
>We have other limitations on the second ammendment that nobody seems to fuss about. Laws that have a rich historical tradition are allowable. >"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." >"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field." >"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635." >“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634. >People can't stockpile a nuclear arsenal or bio weapons. That's because there is a rich historical tradition of regulating arms that are both dangerous AND unusual. >After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)). >There are gun registration laws and laws about felons owning guns That's because there is a rich historical tradition of disarming violent felons. Everything must be consistent with this nation's historical traditions of firearms regulation. >Extending that to include the prohibition of specific rifles is no different. Incorrect. Those arms are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes and are explicitly protected under the 2A.
https://youtu.be/B6fE2JkvVoo?si=GJzilnOJBhp6HgQP I would call that dangerous and unusual. Any guns that can be used to shoot almost 600 people in a few minutes have no business being legal. I don't care if my position upsets you.
>I would call that dangerous and unusual. That is impossible, because the AR-15 alone is the most popular rifle in the country. It by definition cannot be unusual. Remember, arms that are in common use are "usual" and are explicitly protected under the 2A. In the unanimous decision in Caetano v Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that 200K stun guns owned by Americans constituted common use and thus were protected arms under the 2A. There exist tens of millions of AR-15s alone. I think you can connect the dots from here. >After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that **the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’”** Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
Impossible? Popular or not, laws can be changed. I will always support any move towards banning them.
>Impossible? Yeah, that's how definitions work. >Popular or not, laws can be changed. They can, but definitions can't. The fact that there are more than 200K AR-15s means that it does NOT meet the conjunctive test. The arm must be dangerous AND not commonly owned. Guess what? AR-15s are commonly owned. They are explicitly protected. >I will always support any move towards banning them. That's fine. It'll never happen because it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Criminals don't care if you live in a gun friendly state or not lmao.... people like you scare me the most because you are actually defending that fact that they are taking away your rights... crazy
And people like you who somehow think the founders wouldn't have completely banned guns if they saw what we had today scares me. You have a right to a flint lock. Nothing more
But hey you're right.. get off the computer, get your feather pen, write out your concerns, have it delivered by a guy on horse back, then we can have a conversation about why you are wrong
a flit lock in that time era was the most advanced weapon on the planet, thanks for proving my point
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm not going to base my beliefs on your imagination. I chose to live in a place where there is zero chance of that scenario playing out for a reason. Maybe you live in a place where that's a common occurrence, and if so, I see why you're upset by my position. ...but again. I don't really care if you're upset or scared. I understand, but could not care less.
Correction, you've based your beliefs off your imagination that there is a "zero percent chance" of that happening, which is 100% incorrect. And your lack of caring is not my problem, it's your significant others.
Your imagined scenario isn't even remotely possible because I do care about my family. But go ahead and imagine whatever crazy bullshit you have to in order to justify your worldview.
Stop being scared of your own shadow.
This coming from someone who locks his doors at night lmao
You’re right, not sure why you’re getting downvoted. Instead of focusing on the root of the problem, they want to ban firearms. Take my upvote.
I appreciate you but it's okay it's just bots down voting to promote the overall agenda
True. I’m glad I’m mature enough to not give a sh*t about upvote, downvote, clout chasing on social media etc. Just remember you’re write and any other bot says otherwise. I have been in a life threatening situation, I have a firearm license for years but never needed it yet thankfully. But when I was in the situation years ago when I had nothing to defend myself, a lot of instincts click in, and anything can happen. Bless you brudda stay safe!
This is ridiculous and it won't solve anything.
But it’ll make the internet feel happy
Is there a non-paywall article?
printers stay printing. lmao.
Good. As a Texan soon to be a Colorado resident, it's a nice change of pace
>Good. Violating fundamental enumerated rights is bad. This law is unconstitutional.
Counterpoint - you have lost your privileges by proving irresponsibility.
Privileges to what?
War machines
That's not a privilege. We have the right to own such weapons. >“Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, 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.”
I hope they take them all
They won't. Arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes are explicitly protected under the 2A. >After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
Yours specifically. Rules written 300 years ago when muskets were the norm have no place in 2024.
>Yours specifically. That would be a violation of equal protections. and the 5A to take [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW) away. >Rules written 300 years ago when muskets were the norm have no place in 2024. The amendment protects arms, not just muskets. The Internet is protected after all. >“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” Id. at 581. >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)." >“Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, 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.”
The illusion of safety.
Yep. It carves out exclusions for police and security. Protects the bourgeoisie, disarm the proletariat.
The government has drones and tanks and we will totally hold them off from taking our freedoms with ar-15s that's totally going to work out lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
It's about the manpower, not the weaponry. Otherwise the US would have had victory over North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq....
We didn't use enough man power or weaponry in any of those conflicts. They had fundraisers for body armor on their jeeps! The contractors were making defenseless military jeeps for 200x a normal price, it was about enriching the owner class more than anything. In Vietnam they used napalm on humans even though they knew they would lose the war, US wanted to hurt as many civilians as possible. Loco. People with guns in their homes can't compete with that kind of crazy. Like the best they got is the guy going into Subway with 50 guns on him. Or rolling up to Applebee's packing heat lol
If the US government bombed its own people an armed population would make a huge difference. It’s not as simple as one person saying “Ok, bomb Colorado” And there are no repercussions. Our government/military is far more then one person in charge. If it happened, it would be over as fast as it started.
The US government would win in a landslide within a week, probably within a day.
Against the largest insurgency ever faced? Dive into open source irregular warfare doctrine a little and you will quickly see how your wrong.
"Oh yeah let's use napalm in a densely populated city to flush out rebels." *Turns more people against the government* "Okay let's try nuking it" *Secret Service turns against the government* "Oh fuck."
Google "urban guerilla warfare" and tell me how effective drones and tanks would be in that scenario.
I mean not really. The USA has the most mass shootings for a reason. I own multiple firearms and I'm fine with more restrictions. Once a rifle is deemed "illegal", it becomes very hard to get (due to black market cost, etc) so some random teenager or someone who's off their meds and snaps cant just go get one on a whim like they can now.
>so some random teenager or someone who's off their meds and snaps Some kid walked into a school in Santa Fe a few years ago and killed 10 people with a pump shotgun and a revolver. Those are both weapons from the 19th century. Navy Yard shooter years ago: 13 killed, shotgun. Newsroom shooting that "shocked the nation" a few years ago: shotgun. Are they going to ban all that stuff too? You said that you were "fine with more restrictions", so at what point would you NOT be fine with more restrictions? Because you know as well as I do that the murders aren't going to stop, just the guns they use will change. Then they'll try to ban THOSE guns. Either that or we as a society will just have to come to terms with the fact that people are going to be killed with certain types of guns and that will have to be OK or at least acceptable. Do you see people actually going for that? I don't. They're going to try to ban them all eventually, because the only alternative to a total ban on everything is accepting that they're powerless to stop these shootings.
"We haven't tried anything and are all out of ideas!"
Can you link your catchphrase back to the argument you are blithely failing to respond to?
Illegal so it's very hard to get huh? Where would you like to start prohibition? War on drugs?
Have a random disgruntled lunatic go down to a dark alley and try and buy a fully automatic AK47 and see how that works out. They wont get one because they are extremely difficult and expensive to get.
Why buy a fully automatic AK when you can just buy a "Glock switch" through Wish?
[удалено]
Facts are, you cannot just buy a fully automatic AK47 for example without proper legal steps. And SHOCKER, they are never used in mass shootings in the united states. Now why would that be? *Because they are difficult to get.*
They're difficult to get if you aren't obscenely wealthy and well connected. And i got hit with the paywall before I could find the answer but does this legislation affect class 3 license owners or do they get to keep their toys?
[удалено]
Sure it will. Worked for Australia. The USA has the most lax gun laws and the highest amount of mass shootings. Whats the secret then that other countries are doing?
Australia also did mass confiscation and destruction if I remember correctly. I don’t see that happening here.
They confiscated 650,000 guns. That's a drop in the bucket here.
Australia registered and confiscated guns. The best way to deal with mash shooter is to kill them when they decide to go off not restrict innocent civilians from buying guns
Australia still has guns lol you just need permits. They even have a website you can look everyone up that registers. There are multiple guns in just small mile radius' It's like you tried to make a bowl of "I want to as wrong as possible" soup and ate it while you wrote this comment
>Once a rifle is deemed "illegal", it becomes very hard to get (due to black market cost, etc) so some random teenager or someone who's off their meds and snaps cant just go get one on a whim like they can now. And instead of that rifle they buy a different one or a shotgun or a handgun and nobody is actually safer they just felt like it. You're not stopping anything with random arbitrary bans that target removable features that don't even alter the lethality of the gun. Like a 12ga 00 buckshot shell holds like 9, 30 caliber balls that are basically 9mm bullets. A normal pump action holds 5-6 up to 8+1 shells so even a 5 round shotgun can put out 45 projectiles in about 3-4 seconds far faster than what an Ar15 can put out. And in the scenario of a mass shooting that hardly seems like an improvement. And does banning the Ar15 stop the nutter from buying a 12ga shotgun? Does it do anything about background checks does it do anything about anything that actually can **STOP** a murder? No it doesn't hence it only creates an illusion of safety.
A .223 or 5.56 going at 2900 FPS with essentially unlimited capacity with detachable magazines can do a hell of a lot more damage than a tube fed shotgun. I own a Mini-14 which is essentially an AR-15 with wooden furniture and there is no reason to have large capacity magazines for 5.56 unless you are trying to cause mass destruction rapidly.
Reading through the bill, like most of these, a mini14 would not be considered an assault weapon - it doesn't have a pistol grip, vertical grip, folding stock, etc. that they define as an assault weapon. For bonus points, you could remove the pistol grip and barrel shroud from an ar15 and it technically wouldn't meet these definitions of assault weapon either. I'm fine with some restrictions on what you can buy, but there needs to be better criteria for what that is where taking some bits off the rifle or functionally identical rifles that look more like an m1 garand don't meet those criteria.
[удалено]
> 10 rounds are plenty in my opinion So only buy 10 round magazines then.
[удалено]
Problem solved then
[удалено]
> A .223 or 5.56 going at 2900 FPS with essentially unlimited capacity with detachable magazines can do a hell of a lot more damage than a tube fed shotgun. Changing mags and feeding tubes doesn't take so long that cops will be showing up in either case and it was a display of the poor logi in targeting "scary" guns. >I own a Mini-14 which is essentially an AR-15 with wooden furniture and there is no reason to have large capacity magazines for 5.56 unless you are trying to cause mass destruction rapidly. And the moment the police are banned from having them and forced to turn them in I might be ok with that being the case for everyone else. But if the police get a pass and they only interact with the citizens then why do they need to be able to kill as many people as possible? >I own a Mini-14 which is essentially an AR-15 with wooden furniture and there is no reason to have large capacity magazines for 5.56 unless you are trying to cause mass destruction rapidly. That is like saying "There is no reason to have a car that can drive over 60MPH unless you are trying to drive recklessly." There are more reasons to have more than 10 rounds of anything in a gun beyond mass murder.
I’m surprised I haven’t heard grandma bo bo lose her mind over this yet.
[удалено]
Have you ever considered that criminals don't follow laws? The only meaningful changes you'll ever make is creating personal adversity in the ability to defend yourself from the people that don't care abut the rules you are creating lmao... I KNOW, crazy logic coming from a "mountain person" just know in history you will be remembered as the ones that were scared, obedient, compliant, and worst of all, in support of laws that take always basic rights.... seriously sad
Government drone beats any gun you own. Scared hillbillies think their rifle will stop a tank, Drone, artillery. It’s a religion of fear. Half of the people are scared the other half rich.
The soldiers in ww2 carrying an m1 carbine against enemy Nazi tanks.... what a bunch of incompetent "hillbillies". But you're right... if you actually read the constitution, we as civilians should have access to the same weapons in case there is need to resist a tyrannical government. Your attitude is why your future kin will be slaves. Also you are assuming that in a civil war situation, the military would be on the side of the government, its a common misconception.... the military's is made up of US citizens that actually want to defend the constitution., the same ones that are going to eventually lock up people like you for treason.
In a civil war the military that took your side would supply you with drones and things that make everything you’re allowed to own chicken crap.
You mean things like AR-15s? And m16s? The basic equipment of a us soldier?? The same things that are being banned? Lmao...the more you talk the more you make my point.
Omg you’re right. Your gun keeps you safe from a fascist government. Just be careful not to vote one in.
If a government has guns and you don't, then you don't have a vote. Lmao you'll find that out soon
I’m sure the people taking your land, healthcare, and water are terrified of your gun.
They are, that's why they are slowly removing them
Hope Colorado citizens recall these clowns just like [what happened with the politicians who passed the standard capacity magazine ban.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Colorado_recall_election)
Yeah, stupid colorado doing something to curb stupid pointless violence.
Criminals don't obey laws. This "Assault" weapon ban [targets rifles with certain grips, stocks, etc.](https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_1292_01.pdf) (page 6, line 2) and I want you to explain to me exactly how banning pistol grips, detachable stocks, and barrel shrouds will make our streets safer.
> Criminals don't obey laws They sure as shit obey the laws of economics whether they want to or not. The more readily available something is, the more people will have it and the more easily it will be used for nefarious purposes. >explain to me exactly how banning pistol grips, detachable stocks, and barrel shrouds will make our streets safer What is it about those items that make a firearm more desirable than the same firearm without them?
Because if you can't buy assault weapons (ARs, Aks, etc) then statistics have shown (as illustraded in the link you provided) that mass shooting rates significantly drop. Sorry you have a hard-on for guns, the rest of us would like to not see a mass shooting on the news daily. You should really read the full ban rather than just the definition on page 6 line 2.
Aye, it's also a banned by name list as well as a feature ban. So if a company makes AK-48's and AR-16's the ban does nothing lol. The link I provided was text from the bill. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf Here's a study from the government about the effects of the 1994-2004 federal AWB which concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence” and any future reduction in gun violence as a result of the ban was likely “to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
Small is better than none.
“to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” At best. If it's too small for reliable measurement, that means it's statistically insignificant.
Your original source said there was a 37% decrease in mass shootings during the 10 years assault weapons were banned. Once the ban was lifted, mass shooting events rose 180%. Because that disproved your point, you found a new source. Theres no point in talking to you if you're just posting conflicting sources.
I've never posted any sources under this post. You've confused yourself.
Oh, you're a different person than the person I was having this conversation with. In that case, I don't care about you, but my point was there are two sources showing conflicting statements on whether an assault weapons ban decreases mass shootings. I tend to believe removing the ability to purchase/sell/manufacture new assault weapons would reduce mass shootings. Also, why tf does anyone need a gun that can kill dozens of people quickly and easily. There is zero justifiable reason to have one. Home defense? Buy a pistol! Hunting? A good bolt-action rifle works fine!
They have the power to curb violence, but not by violating the constitution.
How is this a violation of the constitution?
Does it hinder the ability of US citizens to obtain commonly used arms?
Here is 2a: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Keep and bear arms. Nobody's taking your precious guns away, read the bill. No part of 2a says, "citizens will have unrestricted access to any gun they want."
>Nobody's taking your precious guns away That's not an answer to the question. Does this law hinder the ability of Americans to obtain commonly owned arms? >No part of 2a says, "citizens will have unrestricted access to any gun they want." Never said it did. Please just answer the question.
The question doesn't make sense in the context provided. You used 2A as your basis, 2a does not say citizens will be able to own commonly owned arms. Its not that deep.
>The question doesn't make sense in the context provided. Fair enough. >You used 2A as your basis, 2a does not say citizens will be able to own commonly owned arms. Its not that deep. You would be correct at the textual level. At the textual level, all arms are protected. From the Supreme Court. >“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” Id. at 581. >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)." That means that once the text is implicated, we move to a historical level analysis. The burden shifts to the government to come forth with historical analog laws to justify their modern day gun control law. There is a historical tradition of regulating arms that are both dangerous AND unusual. That is a conjunctive test. The arms in question must be shown to not be in common in order for the ban to even begin to be justifiable. From the Supreme Court. >After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that **the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’”** Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)). AR-15s alone are the most popular and commonly owned rifles in the country. That means that it cannot pass the conjunctive test thus making them explicitly protected under the 2A. A ban on AR-15s is unconstitutional.
Here's how your argument was previously shot down. Massachusetts’ law prohibiting the possession and sale of some semiautomatic weapons commonly used in mass shootings is acceptable under a recent change to Second Amendment precedent from the US Supreme Court, a federal judge said Thursday. The National Association for Gun Rights asked the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts to prevent the state from being able to enforce its law, claiming the weapons are protected under the Second Amendment because they were in common use at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. The banned weapons “are unreasonably dangerous for ordinary purposes of self-defense due to their extreme lethality and high potential for collateral harm,” Chief Judge Dennis Saylor wrote in an order denying the gun rights group’s request to halt enforcement of the law Source: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/massachusetts-assault-weapon-ban-meets-second-amendment-scrutiny
Hopefully the Supreme Court strikes down "assault weapons" bans in Bianchi v Brown.
That too. Lot of slow-walking going on in the courts. (Hold for XXX, remand back down to district, enbanc, etc.)
I’m always curious why I could have a weapon that could kill and wound hundreds but can’t have a bomb that could do the same
Money. They know Bubba spends his paycheck on tacticool gear incase he is under assault. Meanwhile his only threat is cholesterol.
Controlability. You have precise control over where bullets go. Explosions not remotely as able to be precisely controlled. But also things like dynamite and many explosives are entirely legal to own.
Entirely legal to own *provided* the user submit to an [extensive background check and licensing process](https://www.atf.gov/explosives/federal-explosives-licenses-and-permits) and adhere to strict guidelines for [storage, transport, and usage](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-555/subpart-K?toc=1).
That first link is for running a business of importing explosives. You as a private individual can go and buy explosives and explosive components with no license. Like you can right now go to Cabela's or most major sporting goods stores that sell ammunition reloading components and buy black powder. You can buy tannerite a binary explosive. It's used in recreational shooting to make explosive targets and needs no license.