Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 4/14/2002 11:50:16 AM EDT
Ok everyone, so here is the 7th gun control paper and most likely the last I'll ever write, unless I get the firm that I want! I'm basically looking for ideas on a 15 page paper, which can analyze the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 (Federal). It can compare the definitions of "Assault Weapon" as NJ, CA and Fed define it or it can be anything else I want it to be. I WILL TAKE ANY AND ALL SUGGESTIONS FOR A PAPER TOPIC OUTSIDE OF THE AWB TOPIC AREA! I am also looking for statutes and cases if you know of them. I've found some interesting stuff, but I'm looking to you guys that have been around here longer than I and have seen many of the legal topics pop up. Thanks for your help, I'm looking to get an early jump on this, its due in a month.
Link Posted: 4/14/2002 12:36:55 PM EDT
so your looking for a non AWB topic? howabouts tax for non revenue purpose? sweet way to make something all but illegal (NFA weapons) without acually getting a law aginst them.
Link Posted: 4/14/2002 2:11:30 PM EDT
Could you request the BATF to release the total revenue generated from the tax pre year for the last 10 years, and the costs of running the NFA section of the BATF? Somehow I don't think they making any money on it. - Sulaco
Link Posted: 4/14/2002 2:41:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/14/2002 2:50:30 PM EDT by shaggy]
Just an idea - don't know if you'll want to take this sort of angle, but look at the AWB as a 5th Amendment and Lanham Act problem for certain manufacturers. Certain specifically named brands/types (AR15 for example) are trademarked. Now, while a trademark is not a 'property' per se, a valid mark can be a very valuable commodity. Companies like Harley Davidson pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into protection and maintenance of their marks, and those marks generate hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars in revenue. Its been a while since I've read Penn Arms/Navegar, but as I recall, the court denied their challenge basicly because (according to the court) it wasn't a bill of attainder because they could continue doing business, just not making the same guns with the preban features after the ban. As far as I know, Penn & Navegar (or anyone else like Colt) never made the argument that by banning future production of specifically named models, the government took a valuable commodity (the trademarked names and business goodwill associated with those trademarks) for a public purpose with out compensation in violation of the Takings clause.
Link Posted: 4/14/2002 10:13:29 PM EDT
I seem to recall one state has the "use of an assault weapon" as an special circumstance to make one eligible for the death penalty. Murder someone with a Mini-14 and its LWOP, add a bayo lug and a pistol grip stock and you get the chair. Sorry, I can't remember which state it was.
Top Top