In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Assault Weapons Ban Alternative?
Carteroaks
Member Posts: 10 ✭✭
Connecticut has enacted a ban on semi-automatic, center fire rifles that have features that meet the definition of an "assault weapon," such as an AR-15, etc.
The Connecticut Constitution specifically guarantees "every citizen the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Connecticut's highest court has held that this right means the right to "possess a weapon of reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense."
Can you help me to identify a weapon that would be legal to possess under the new Connecticut assault weapons ban, which would be "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense" against an assailant that was armed with an assault weapon.
I get conflicting information, but I am generally told that the only weapon that would be reasonably sufficient for defense against an "assault weapon" is another "assault weapon." What is your opinion?
The Connecticut Constitution specifically guarantees "every citizen the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Connecticut's highest court has held that this right means the right to "possess a weapon of reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense."
Can you help me to identify a weapon that would be legal to possess under the new Connecticut assault weapons ban, which would be "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense" against an assailant that was armed with an assault weapon.
I get conflicting information, but I am generally told that the only weapon that would be reasonably sufficient for defense against an "assault weapon" is another "assault weapon." What is your opinion?
Comments
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
http://www.GunBroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=373010473
Brad Steele
But, really, in the end, would any be reasonably sufficient against an AK 47?
Certainly, it's a reliable weapon. But its usefulness in combat is limited to about 100 yards or less and it is not particularly well adapted for CQB. In that role its probably in the middle of the pack somewhere. Not terrible, but given no restrictions there are plenty that are better.
As for "heavy" firepower... simply putting a lot of rounds downrange quickly... the ruger minis are a fine choice, but you get about the same accuracy as the AK or SKS. But heck, at short ranges, a good shotgun with the proper loads will fare as well, maybe better. Might also want to consider the M1 carbine.
If you want to reach out and touch someone further than 100 yards there are plenty of good offerings in that category. Most all of which would reach further and better than the AK. I'm not sure if a FAL would fit the requirements under assault weapons bans you're restricting yourself to, but it's an excellent option if it does. The BAR linked by Don, above... or any of a host of semiautomatic hunting rifles, or even lever operated, in trained hands (IMO) would likely serve you better for longer range accuracy than an AK. That BAR is easily a 500 yard manslayer. An M1 would work quite well, too. And a mosin is a fine option and really low cost at that.
If you keep in mind the limitations of your weapon, you can easily take out an AK wielding opponent with a single shot weapon. You simply have to change up your tactics.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Thanks all. I appreciate the recommendations. My inquiry was really more along the lines of the constitutional guaranty. I know, for example, that I can ably stop an assailant with a single shot 22, or a shotgun of any gauge, or my 3" spiderco, for that matter. The real question is whether being so armed would be "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self defense" against an assailant armed with an "assault weapon"? From your answers I take it that you all would be comfortable with your recommendations if you found yourselves in such a situation. That answer pretty much verifies the constitutionality of the Connecticut assault weapons ban. I was looking for a viable challenge. Thanks again. Much appreciated.
SCOTUS verified the constitutionality of the CT ban with the McDonald decision. SCOTUS was wrong.
I would hope you understand that the 2nd Amendment is about protecting our state of freedom, not protecting ourselves from an armed assailant, regardless of what he is carrying.
To reach your conclusion, you would have to ask what would be necessary to defend yourself from the Connecticut State Patrol's (or pick another if you wish) SWAT Team, etc.
In that case, one would have to be sufficiently armed to out-distance their snipers and out volume the rest of their goons.
In this case, not only is the CT 'assault weapons' ban demonstrably unconstitutional, so is the National Firearms Act of 1934 and, more egregiously, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.
So, if your intent is to find a viable challenge, you have to be open to what the threat to freedom actually is. If, however, you are looking to make some other type of point, your straw-man argument must be very satisfying, silly as it may be.
Brad Steele
Thanks all. I appreciate the recommendations. My inquiry was really more along the lines of the constitutional guaranty. I know, for example, that I can ably stop an assailant with a single shot 22, or a shotgun of any gauge, or my 3" spiderco, for that matter. The real question is whether being so armed would be "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self defense" against an assailant armed with an "assault weapon"? From your answers I take it that you all would be comfortable with your recommendations if you found yourselves in such a situation. That answer pretty much verifies the constitutionality of the Connecticut assault weapons ban. I was looking for a viable challenge. Thanks again. Much appreciated.
I think you're approaching the question from the wrong way. You need to look at constitutionality not from a "if one person has x then I need x" but from a "what gives me the ability to protect myself at all? There are multiple related questions too, because there are so many variables. "What if there are multiple assailants?" "How could I still use my gun were I to run out of ammo?" "What features would help make my weapon more durable, user friendly, allow a person to act quickly, and put the disabled on similar footing to an assailant that is not?". You need to approach it from that sort of standpoint, because the simple fact of the matter is, a person can take on an AK-47 wielding assailant with bare hands and depending upon circumstances.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Carteroaks
Thanks all. I appreciate the recommendations. My inquiry was really more along the lines of the constitutional guaranty. I know, for example, that I can ably stop an assailant with a single shot 22, or a shotgun of any gauge, or my 3" spiderco, for that matter. The real question is whether being so armed would be "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self defense" against an assailant armed with an "assault weapon"? From your answers I take it that you all would be comfortable with your recommendations if you found yourselves in such a situation. That answer pretty much verifies the constitutionality of the Connecticut assault weapons ban. I was looking for a viable challenge. Thanks again. Much appreciated.
SCOTUS verified the constitutionality of the CT ban with the McDonald decision. SCOTUS was wrong.
I would hope you understand that the 2nd Amendment is about protecting our state of freedom, not protecting ourselves from an armed assailant, regardless of what he is carrying.
To reach your conclusion, you would have to ask what would be necessary to defend yourself from the Connecticut State Patrol's (or pick another if you wish) SWAT Team, etc.
In that case, one would have to be sufficiently armed to out-distance their snipers and out volume the rest of their goons.
In this case, not only is the CT 'assault weapons' ban demonstrably unconstitutional, so is the National Firearms Act of 1934 and, more egregiously, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.
So, if your intent is to find a viable challenge, you have to be open to what the threat to freedom actually is. If, however, you are looking to make some other type of point, your straw-man argument must be very satisfying, silly as it may be.
Don, as usual, you have gone to the crux of the issue more deftly than I. Well put.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
I'm not speaking of the 2nd Amendment. That Amendment only guarantees my rights as a U.S. Citizen. I first have rights under the Connecticut Constitution, and unless SCOTUS voids those rights under the commerce clause, they are, frankly, superior to those under the 2nd Amendment, as assured by the 10th Amendment.
Article 1 Sect. 15 of the Connecticut Constitution guarantees a Connecticut Citizen the right to "bear arms in defense himself and the state." That right has been interpreted by the Connecticut Supreme Court (which has the final authority on that score, not SCOTUS) to mean that I have the right to bear arms of "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self defense."
In that light, I question whether the current Connecticut assault weapons ban, denies me the right to have arms of "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self defense" against an assailant armed with an assault weapon.
I contend that, if Connecticut law only permits me to possess a single shot derringer, while allowing a large portion of the population to possess assault type weapons, then that law violates my constitutional rights under Art. 1 Sect. 15 of the Connecticut Constitution.
You all seem to disagree, apparently arguing that the single shot derringer is reasonably sufficient firepower for self defense when assailed by an opponent armed with an assault weapon.
I had assumed otherwise, but, I value your expertise, and would expect that the State would marshal the likes of you in response to any constitutional challenge that I might want to make. I would have no expert witnesses to rebut the state's case, and thus the constitutionality of the ban would be sustained.
Bummer.
I guess I haven't been all that clear.
I'm not speaking of the 2nd Amendment. That Amendment only guarantees my rights as a U.S. Citizen. I first have rights under the Connecticut Constitution, and unless SCOTUS voids those rights under the commerce clause, they are, frankly, superior to those under the 2nd Amendment, as assured by the 10th Amendment.
Article 1 Sect. 15 of the Connecticut Constitution guarantees a Connecticut Citizen the right to "bear arms in defense himself and the state." That right has been interpreted by the Connecticut Supreme Court (which has the final authority on that score, not SCOTUS) to mean that I have the right to bear arms of "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self defense."
In that light, I question whether the current Connecticut assault weapons ban, denies me the right to have arms of "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self defense" against an assailant armed with an assault weapon.
I contend that, if Connecticut law only permits me to possess a single shot derringer, while allowing a large portion of the population to possess assault type weapons, then that law violates my constitutional rights under Art. 1 Sect. 15 of the Connecticut Constitution.
You all seem to disagree, apparently arguing that the single shot derringer is reasonably sufficient firepower for self defense when assailed by an opponent armed with an assault weapon.
I had assumed otherwise, but, I value your expertise, and would expect that the State would marshal the likes of you in response to any constitutional challenge that I might want to make. I would have no expert witnesses to rebut the state's case, and thus the constitutionality of the ban would be sustained.
Bummer.
You are not necessarily correct in your evaluation of the 9th and 10th Amendments. If the 2nd Amendment is an individual right as was noted by Scalia in the Heller decision, any assault weapons ban would logically be a power prohibited to the State of Connecticut by the U.S. Constitution.
Regarding your continued pushing of your agenda, however:
If the Connecticut High Court has actually reduced the meaning of the clause "every citizen the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." to "possess a weapon of reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense." you have your answer.
Any reasonable defense suggests that a person be better armed than his assailant both in range and in volume of fire. I would suggest you actually find the precise wording of the court decision, and determine in context, the meaning of 'reasonable'.
If assailed by a knife wielding assailant, would one be limited to blades? That is obviously not reasonable.
If assailed by a someone with a .22LR pistol, are you also limited to .22LR? This also is not reasonable.
If someone is coming after you with that super-weapon, the AK-47 then, sufficiently armed for defense of self would suggest that the defender be in possession of a weapon of equal or greater firepower.
This, obviously, is what is reasonable, although you then have to consider what you are going to do if your mythical assailant comes at you with an RPG.
You are faced with the need to define reasonable in the eyes of the State of Connecticut. In the context of your question, it is unreasonable to limit citizens from possessing anything that an assailant may possibly obtain. A cute set-up, but one that obviously is not sincere as to finding an answer.
Brad Steele
I guess I haven't been all that clear.
I'm not speaking of the 2nd Amendment. That Amendment only guarantees my rights as a U.S. Citizen. I first have rights under the Connecticut Constitution, and unless SCOTUS voids those rights under the commerce clause, they are, frankly, superior to those under the 2nd Amendment, as assured by the 10th Amendment.
Article 1 Sect. 15 of the Connecticut Constitution guarantees a Connecticut Citizen the right to "bear arms in defense himself and the state." That right has been interpreted by the Connecticut Supreme Court (which has the final authority on that score, not SCOTUS) to mean that I have the right to bear arms of "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self defense."
In that light, I question whether the current Connecticut assault weapons ban, denies me the right to have arms of "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self defense" against an assailant armed with an assault weapon.
I contend that, if Connecticut law only permits me to possess a single shot derringer, while allowing a large portion of the population to possess assault type weapons, then that law violates my constitutional rights under Art. 1 Sect. 15 of the Connecticut Constitution.
You all seem to disagree, apparently arguing that the single shot derringer is reasonably sufficient firepower for self defense when assailed by an opponent armed with an assault weapon.
I had assumed otherwise, but, I value your expertise, and would expect that the State would marshal the likes of you in response to any constitutional challenge that I might want to make. I would have no expert witnesses to rebut the state's case, and thus the constitutionality of the ban would be sustained.
Bummer.
I think you have fundamentally misinterpreted the above comments. First of all, you should note that most of the answers (mine in particular) were directed toward "is it necessary", not "what is desirable for effectiveness". Furthermore, if you read any of my comments, they are rife with comparisons to comparable guns that would match well given the restrictions. Not, given no restrictions.
Secondly, now that we are closer to what you are really wanting an answer to, first let me position your question. Your question should be: what arms would you want/need at your disposal given: unknown number of assailants and unknown training level of assailants-- armed with small arms like or equal to an AK-47.
The answer to that is clearly: "superior firepower". Faster rate of fire, larger capacity, longer range, better penetration, and features which make that firepower rapidly deployable and highly reliable.
Any of numerous possible scenarios within those parameters suggest fully automatic, belt fed arms, in 7.62x51 or 7.62x63. Tactics might warrant something a bit more mobile and in 5.56, but still fully automatic (such as an M4), or less mobile than that (but still more mobile than belt fed) with more/similar range such as the M14 (the debate on what is the ultimate battle weapon rages). But a few things are held common; the aforementioned high rate of fire, large capacity, rapid deployment, reliability, and even ready access to multiple arms of various type. Also, I don't think the above rules out a potential need for RPGs, belt fed 50cal, or some heavier artillery. But it could merely warrant a 12ga pump or hand gun. The gamut is run.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
You are correct that it is up to the courts to determine what is meant by "reasonably sufficient firepower."
However, that is a factual question, and the courts find facts based upon evidence admitted at trial.
In Connecticut, that factual determination would be made by a jury composed of Connecticut citizens.
If the only evidence that the jury receives is that a 22 cal. derringer is reasonably sufficient firepower, then the jury will determine that to be a matter of fact, and consequently, the Connecticut legislature might constitutionally limit the right to bear arms to 22 cal. derringers.
I was looking for someone who might be able to offer evidence to the contrary, and particularly in connection with the need to defend against an assailant armed with an assault weapon. I can't find anyone, and I just thought that odd in a forum men and women knowledgeable about firearms.
The Connecticut constitutional guaranty is "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self defense."
You are correct that it is up to the courts to determine what is meant by "reasonably sufficient firepower."
However, that is a factual question, and the courts find facts based upon evidence admitted at trial.
In Connecticut, that factual determination would be made by a jury composed of Connecticut citizens.
If the only evidence that the jury receives is that a 22 cal. derringer is reasonably sufficient firepower, then the jury will determine that to be a matter of fact, and consequently, the Connecticut legislature might constitutionally limit the right to bear arms to 22 cal. derringers.
I was looking for someone who might be able to offer evidence to the contrary, and particularly in connection with the need to defend against an assailant armed with an assault weapon. I can't find anyone, and I just thought that odd in a forum men and women knowledgeable about firearms.
Why wouldn't you just look at what the military feels is necessary for them? Or the police for their force? They are the "experts" in defense. One need only look to what they arm themselves with.
And further, your response bothers me. Somehow, since you didn't get the exact answer you wanted you've decided to "poor me, I guess I'm stuck with a 22lr derringer".
And on a final note, legal battles are won using a plurality of tactics. Absent relevant case law, you can use logical arguments, facts, statistics, and expert testimony (opinion).
Regarding the last point, there are volumes upon volumes of expert testimony regarding what to use for self defense. You just need to pick your expert (Ayoob is a pretty good one, but there are lots of others).
I'll leave the research of facts and statistics to someone more inclined to search for them. But I will proffer a logical argument or two. Logic permits us to reason that if an assailant (singular) is attacking, it is reasonable to assume that the defender needs at least "meet force" to confront the threat. If one 200lb man is attacked by a second 200lb man (we will assume that all things are equal) throwing punches (i.e. empty handed), we can reasonably assume the threat can be confronted by the first man using his hands. If there is any imbalance in the scenario, say the attacker is a 200lb man but the attacked is a 150lb man, it is reasonable to assume the defender is justified in using superior force to confront the threat (a knife, a gun, a stick, whatever). I believe there is case law to support this, but I am not going to search it out for you. Logic further tells us that we can not know what the imbalance might be. Is it training? Is it superior numbers? Is it surprise? Thus, it is reasonable to assume that superior force is not only justified but warranted.
Thus far, all I have been discussing is what is reasonable to confront the threat, not ward off or thwart an attack. It is reasonable to assume that superior force is ALWAYS necessary to ward off or thwart an attack. Otherwise, the attack is either successful or a stalemate is reached. Stalemate is not an acceptable or likely option.
Thus, if we are going to discuss what is reasonable for defense, we must be considering options that advantage the defender.
Now, to put it all back into the proper perspective. Who is defending against what threat? That is the crux of this whole issue (as Don noted above). Amendment 2 of the US Constitution addresses the right of the people to defend against tyrannical government. Thus, the defender is the individual (as ruled in Heller) and the aggressor for which the defender must be prepared is government, and government agents in particular. The government has both local police and/or military at their disposal.
Now tell me, what arms do you need to defend against them? Do you still conclude that it's a 22lr derringer?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
The Connecticut constitutional guaranty is "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self defense."
You are correct that it is up to the courts to determine what is meant by "reasonably sufficient firepower."
However, that is a factual question, and the courts find facts based upon evidence admitted at trial.
In Connecticut, that factual determination would be made by a jury composed of Connecticut citizens.
If the only evidence that the jury receives is that a 22 cal. derringer is reasonably sufficient firepower, then the jury will determine that to be a matter of fact, and consequently, the Connecticut legislature might constitutionally limit the right to bear arms to 22 cal. derringers.
I was looking for someone who might be able to offer evidence to the contrary, and particularly in connection with the need to defend against an assailant armed with an assault weapon. I can't find anyone, and I just thought that odd in a forum men and women knowledgeable about firearms.
You have ignored everything that has been stated since we figured out your agenda. It is easy to solicit misleading answers with misleading questions.
The answer to your question remains:
Reasonably sufficient firepower for self-defense is firepower that is equal to or greater than that which one can be expected to face.
The fact that some folks may be able to defend themselves against an AK using a 10/22 does not make that a reasonable level of firepower in that situation.
If your jury is of your mindset, and likewise filters information for self-serving reasons, you may find yourself left with only a butter-knife, leaving the entire state open for occupation by 18 accountants from Rhode Island.
Brad Steele
If my society exposes me to the risk of defending against an assailant armed with an AK47, then do I not have a right to bear arms of equal or greater firepower?
I believe that a free man has the right to bear arms in defense of his life and his liberty. I believe that to be true regardless of what may appear in constitutions, be they state or federal.
Fortunately, I do find that that this right is expressly guaranteed in the Constitution of the State of Connecticut.
I believe that the new Connecticut law that bars me from acquiring a "assault weapon" denies me the right to bear arms that are equal to or greater than the risk that I might be expected to face by someone in Connecticut that does have an "assault weapon," there being many thousands of such persons whose possession was gradfathered in under the new law.
I would argue that this is unconstitutional, but I can't get there without an expert to establish the facts.
Mr. Perfect is right about asking the police as the "experts." I would frankly expect the Connecticut State Police Commander to testify that he would not send his troopers into a confrontation with someone armed with an assault weapon when all they had was a six shot revolver.
But, I'm told that the State Police Commander would otherwise testify that under the same circumstances, I could have reasonably sufficient fire power, if I was armed with something less than what the Commander might want for his troopers. I'm just trying to find out what that something less might be.
I had been thinking that the Commander is mistaken, but this forum seems to agree with him. So, what is the something less? Keep in mind that it has to be legal under Connecticut's new assualt weapons ban.
I had been thinking that the Commander is mistaken, but this forum seems to agree with him. So, what is the something less? Keep in mind that it has to be legal under Connecticut's new assualt weapons ban.
Categorically untrue and refuted multiple times. Apparently, you're here to be tilting at windmills. Have a good day.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Carteroaks
I had been thinking that the Commander is mistaken, but this forum seems to agree with him. So, what is the something less? Keep in mind that it has to be legal under Connecticut's new assualt weapons ban.
Categorically untrue and refuted multiple times. Apparently, you're here to be tilting at windmills. Have a good day.
Bingo
As for "heavy" firepower... simply putting a lot of rounds downrange quickly... the ruger minis are a fine choice, but you get about the same accuracy as the AK or SKS. But heck, at short ranges, a good shotgun with the proper loads will fare as well, maybe better. Might also want to consider the M1 carbine.
If you want to reach out and touch someone further than 100 yards there are plenty of good offerings in that category. Most all of which would reach further and better than the AK. I'm not sure if a FAL would fit the requirements under assault weapons bans you're restricting yourself to, but it's an excellent option if it does. The BAR linked by Don, above... or any of a host of semiautomatic hunting rifles, or even lever operated, in trained hands (IMO) would likely serve you better for longer range accuracy than an AK. That BAR is easily a 500 yard manslayer. An M1 would work quite well, too. And a mosin is a fine option and really low cost at that.
If you keep in mind the limitations of your weapon, you can easily take out an AK wielding opponent with a single shot weapon. You simply have to change up your tactics."
Ignoring the "single shot weapon" or the shot gun for close range (assuming that you can get close), and ignoring the bolt and lever action rifles for long range (assuming that the bad guy let's you know he's comming), with the exception of the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle, everything else mentioned (SKS, AK, FAL, M1) would be subject to the Connecticut gun ban."
My question has repeatedly been, assuming that such as the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch is all that I can legally possess under the Connecticut Gun ban, will I be reasonably sufficiently armed to defend against an assailant armed with an assault weapon.
Your answers have all suggested that to be the case, and in that way you have defended the constitutionality of the assault weapon ban.
My search for a factual basis to challenge the constitutionality of the ban, has been, as you have suggested, tilting at windmills.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Here are the weapon choices that Mr. Perfect proposed early on in this conversation.
As for "heavy" firepower... simply putting a lot of rounds downrange quickly... the ruger minis are a fine choice, but you get about the same accuracy as the AK or SKS. But heck, at short ranges, a good shotgun with the proper loads will fare as well, maybe better. Might also want to consider the M1 carbine.
If you want to reach out and touch someone further than 100 yards there are plenty of good offerings in that category. Most all of which would reach further and better than the AK. I'm not sure if a FAL would fit the requirements under assault weapons bans you're restricting yourself to, but it's an excellent option if it does. The BAR linked by Don, above... or any of a host of semiautomatic hunting rifles, or even lever operated, in trained hands (IMO) would likely serve you better for longer range accuracy than an AK. That BAR is easily a 500 yard manslayer. An M1 would work quite well, too. And a mosin is a fine option and really low cost at that.
If you keep in mind the limitations of your weapon, you can easily take out an AK wielding opponent with a single shot weapon. You simply have to change up your tactics."
Ignoring the "single shot weapon" or the shot gun for close range (assuming that you can get close), and ignoring the bolt and lever action rifles for long range (assuming that the bad guy let's you know he's comming), with the exception of the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle, everything else mentioned (SKS, AK, FAL, M1) would be subject to the Connecticut gun ban."
My question has repeatedly been, assuming that such as the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch is all that I can legally possess under the Connecticut Gun ban, will I be reasonably sufficiently armed to defend against an assailant armed with an assault weapon.
Your answers have all suggested that to be the case, and in that way you have defended the constitutionality of the assault weapon ban.
My search for a factual basis to challenge the constitutionality of the ban, has been, as you have suggested, tilting at windmills.
The tilting that has occurred has been folks taking you at your word and attempting an honest answer to what was assumed to be an honest question.
Reasonably sufficient is subject to interpretation. You have not presented the context of the court decision in which this was stated, and have decided that your definition is sufficient. This obviously allows you to extrapolate and twist that which is stated by good intentioned contributors who are presenting options, and not framing their answers to meet some arbitrary legal standard you seem to be constructing.
Most Americans do not even believe that the average citizen should be armed as well as the police. Apparently the Connecticut high court is composed of these types of people, and because of that, your Constitution is not worth the paper upon which it is printed.
In my mind, 'reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense' requires a weapon that can penetrate a light armored vehicle and sustain fire for a significant amount of time. By limiting yourself to arguing about defending yourself against one person and small arms fire, you create a scenario that does not challenge your Constitution, and conclude that those that actually do not support your pre-conceived end are arguing in support.
The game has become tedious, but I offer a parting shot.
The Connecticut Law proves itself to be unconstitutional.
Obviously the threat posed by the grand-fathered weapons is sufficiently great that new weapons of the same firepower cannot be allowed. Therefore, a significant percentage of the population will be unable to obtain weapons to provide sufficient firepower to defend against that which is legally in the state.
By banning these 'assault weapons' because of the danger they pose, the Connecticut State legislature has effectively stated that they are the standard by which 'reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense' should be based. It doesn't matter what is possible using a Barrett, the gold standard for destruction and effective killing (and by extension, defense) has been described and banned by the legislature. The Connecticut Constitution says they cannot do that.
Works as well as anything.
All the best.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Carteroaks
Here are the weapon choices that Mr. Perfect proposed early on in this conversation.
As for "heavy" firepower... simply putting a lot of rounds downrange quickly... the ruger minis are a fine choice, but you get about the same accuracy as the AK or SKS. But heck, at short ranges, a good shotgun with the proper loads will fare as well, maybe better. Might also want to consider the M1 carbine.
If you want to reach out and touch someone further than 100 yards there are plenty of good offerings in that category. Most all of which would reach further and better than the AK. I'm not sure if a FAL would fit the requirements under assault weapons bans you're restricting yourself to, but it's an excellent option if it does. The BAR linked by Don, above... or any of a host of semiautomatic hunting rifles, or even lever operated, in trained hands (IMO) would likely serve you better for longer range accuracy than an AK. That BAR is easily a 500 yard manslayer. An M1 would work quite well, too. And a mosin is a fine option and really low cost at that.
If you keep in mind the limitations of your weapon, you can easily take out an AK wielding opponent with a single shot weapon. You simply have to change up your tactics."
Ignoring the "single shot weapon" or the shot gun for close range (assuming that you can get close), and ignoring the bolt and lever action rifles for long range (assuming that the bad guy let's you know he's comming), with the exception of the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle, everything else mentioned (SKS, AK, FAL, M1) would be subject to the Connecticut gun ban."
My question has repeatedly been, assuming that such as the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch is all that I can legally possess under the Connecticut Gun ban, will I be reasonably sufficiently armed to defend against an assailant armed with an assault weapon.
Your answers have all suggested that to be the case, and in that way you have defended the constitutionality of the assault weapon ban.
My search for a factual basis to challenge the constitutionality of the ban, has been, as you have suggested, tilting at windmills.
The tilting that has occurred has been folks taking you at your word and attempting an honest answer to what was assumed to be an honest question.
Reasonably sufficient is subject to interpretation. You have not presented the context of the court decision in which this was stated, and have decided that your definition is sufficient. This obviously allows you to extrapolate and twist that which is stated by good intentioned contributors who are presenting options, and not framing their answers to meet some arbitrary legal standard you seem to be constructing.
Most Americans do not even believe that the average citizen should be armed as well as the police. Apparently the Connecticut high court is composed of these types of people, and because of that, your Constitution is not worth the paper upon which it is printed.
In my mind, 'reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense' requires a weapon that can penetrate a light armored vehicle and sustain fire for a significant amount of time. By limiting yourself to arguing about defending yourself against one person and small arms fire, you create a scenario that does not challenge your Constitution, and conclude that those that actually do not support your pre-conceived end are arguing in support.
The game has become tedious, but I offer a parting shot.
The Connecticut Law proves itself to be unconstitutional.
Obviously the threat posed by the grand-fathered weapons is sufficiently great that new weapons of the same firepower cannot be allowed. Therefore, a significant percentage of the population will be unable to obtain weapons to provide sufficient firepower to defend against that which is legally in the state.
By banning these 'assault weapons' because of the danger they pose, the Connecticut State legislature has effectively stated that they are the standard by which 'reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense' should be based. It doesn't matter what is possible using a Barrett, the gold standard for destruction and effective killing (and by extension, defense) has been described and banned by the legislature. The Connecticut Constitution says they cannot do that.
Works as well as anything.
All the best.
This guy reasons like a left wing loon, so I'll be interested to see how he twists your words now.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
You are correct that "reasonably sufficient is subject to interpretation." That is precisely the issue for purposes of challenging the constitutionality of Connecticut's recent ban.
Does the ban unconstitutionaly deny a citizen the "right to possess a weapon of reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense."
Obviously that question requires further inquiry: self-defense against what?
While I could say tank or bazooka, I simply ask that question with regard to self-defense against an assailant armed with an assault weapon, as such weapons are among the general population of Connecticut, and the threat is real.
I am of the opinion that, if I were so attacked, I would not be armed with a weapon of reasonably sufficient firepower for effective self-defense, if I had a weapon of lesser firepower than the assailant armed with the assault weapon.
My question to this forum has been, is there a firearm that I can now legally possess in Connecticut that would be of at least equal firepower to a banned assault weapon?
I just want to know what kind of firearm you would recommend. The recommendation of a single shot 22 doesn't seem to be sound advice.
If you can't make a reasonable recommendation, then perhaps the ban is unconstitutional. But I need an expert witness to bring that fight. One that can counter the testimony of the State Police Commander that what is legally available to me on the open market in Connecticut is reasonably sufficient. Know anyone?
If you can't make a reasonable recommendation, then perhaps the ban is unconstitutional.
We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you. That sort of info is highly classified.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
But, to prove that in court I need an expert witness and, as I said, one that could competently and credibly rebut the state's evidence to the contrary.
I'm told that I can't get such a witness. Okay, I'll accept that.
I just want to be able to acquire and legally possess the alternative.
But, I'm now told that there isn't one. Catch 22.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
I should probably add that I am an expert in case he wishes to contract my services in court. I am the worlds foremost authority on being me. I say this in complete confidence. Nobody does me better than me.
Connecticut has enacted a ban on semi-automatic, center fire rifles that have features that meet the definition of an "assault weapon," such as an AR-15, etc.
The Connecticut Constitution specifically guarantees "every citizen the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Connecticut's highest court has held that this right means the right to "possess a weapon of reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense."
Can you help me to identify a weapon that would be legal to possess under the new Connecticut assault weapons ban, which would be "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense" against an assailant that was armed with an assault weapon.
I get conflicting information, but I am generally told that the only weapon that would be reasonably sufficient for defense against an "assault weapon" is another "assault weapon." What is your opinion?
Your last paragraph is correct. This law, as well as about 99% of ALL laws, local, state, and federal, which place any limit or restriction on a person to procure, posses, carry, or use any firearm are simply unconstitutional and any LEO who enforces them is in direct violation of the oath they took! [:(!]
quote:Originally posted by Carteroaks
Connecticut has enacted a ban on semi-automatic, center fire rifles that have features that meet the definition of an "assault weapon," such as an AR-15, etc.
The Connecticut Constitution specifically guarantees "every citizen the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Connecticut's highest court has held that this right means the right to "possess a weapon of reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense."
Can you help me to identify a weapon that would be legal to possess under the new Connecticut assault weapons ban, which would be "reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense" against an assailant that was armed with an assault weapon.
I get conflicting information, but I am generally told that the only weapon that would be reasonably sufficient for defense against an "assault weapon" is another "assault weapon." What is your opinion?
Your last paragraph is correct. This law, as well as about 99% of ALL laws, local, state, and federal, which place any limit or restriction on a person to procure, posses, carry, or use any firearm are simply unconstitutional and any LEO who enforces them is in direct violation of the oath they took! [:(!]
Tell it to The NWO judge up there and good luck! Now if someone had not lied about Their Asperger's Syndrome on the BATF form you would not had have all this B.S. Jargon up there to begin with!
Your putting the cart in front of the horses here and your never going back to what our forefathers wanted with the second amendment to mean in that State!
serf
The mother was a idiot to arm herself and her child in that matter with his condition.
A child with Asperger's syndrome may develop an intense, almost obsessive, interest in a few areas, such as sports schedules, weather, or maps.