E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Michael Isikoff
NBC News National Investigative Correspondent
Now that Dick Cheney has opened the door to tighter gun restrictions, will President Barack Obama do the same?
That politically dicey question is playing out behind the scenes in the run-up to next week’s State of the Union. In the aftermath of the Tucson shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and federal Judge John Roll, gun control groups and some Democratic members of Congress are pushing to get the president to directly address the issue of gun violence in his speech to Congress next Tuesday, according to gun control advocates and congressional aides, who asked for anonymity.
Some Democratic party donors are also being urged to weigh in as part of a quiet lobbying effort to prod the president to finally speak out on an issue that he has studiously avoided since taking office, the advocates say.
“There’s a major push to get [Obama] to say something on this,” said Chad Ramsey, legislative director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a leading gun control group. “We’ve been told he will say something, but we’re not sure how strong it will be.”
There have been a number of different gun control ideas put forward since the Jan. 8 Tucson shooting. But gun control groups most of all want Obama’s endorsement of the bill introduced this week by Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York (with more than 40 co-sponsors so far). That bill would ban the sale or transfer of high-capacity gun magazines such as the one allegedly used by Jared L. Loughner to fire off more than 30 rounds. So far, the proposal (and a companion bill to be introduced next week by Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey) has yet to pick up a single Republican co-sponsor.
But backers were buoyed Wednesday when former vice president Dick Cheney, long a stalwart supporter of gun rights, appeared open to the idea, telling NBC’s Jamie Gangel in an interview, “maybe it's appropriate to re-establish that kind of thing.” (See the video of Cheney below.)
A White House official said that aides won't publicly comment on what Obama might or might not say in the Jan. 25 State of the Union. Asked specifically about the McCarthy-Lautenberg proposal to ban high-capacity magazines, Reid Cherlin, a White House press spokesman, said in an e-mail: “A number of proposals have been put forward in the days since these tragic shootings, and we’re going to be taking a close look at all of them.”
As a sign of just how tough a fight this issue would be, the National Rifle Association on Wednesday sent a letter to members of Congress criticizing "anti-gun activists" for pushing several "schemes" after Tucson. Referring specifically to the McCarthy-Lautenberg proposal to ban clips of more than 10 rounds, Chris Cox, the group's chief lobbyist, wrote: "These magazines are standard equipment for self-defense handguns and other firearms owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding private citizens choose them for many reasons, including the same reason police officers do: to improve their odds in defensive situations." (The NRA did not respond to a request to comment on Cheney's remarks to NBC.)
Until now, the entire subject of guns has been anathema at the White House. Obama during his 2008 campaign had pledged to push to reinstate the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. The ban, which was enacted under President Clinton in 1994 and which lapsed under President Bush 10 years later, had included a provision that prohibited the manufacture of high-capacity detachable magazines.
But White House officials pretty much dropped the issue after Obama took office, going so far as to remove the campaign pledge from the White House website. Obama, who stopped talking about guns entirely, also waited nearly two years before nominating a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, fearing that any candidate it sent up to the Senate would incur the wrath of the formidable National Rifle Association, according to administration sources. (Sure enough, its nominee, Andrew Traver, the ATF special agent in charge in Chicago, is the target of an NRA lobbying campaign. It remains far from clear he will ever get confirmed.)
Still, advocates say that the Tucson shooting was such a searing national tragedy that it may now be impossible for Obama to duck the subject. According to gun control groups, and some law enforcement officials, a ban on high-capacity magazines is the one specific proposal that might have made a difference in Tucson, at least in lowering the body count of six killed and 13 wounded. Because of the high-capacity magazine he had attached to his Glock 19 semi-automatic, Loughner was able to get off 31 or 32 shots before he had to reload. It was only when he did so that he was wrestled to the ground.
One prong of the gun control lobbying campaign is to try to line up law enforcement backing for the McCarthy proposal, starting with the Justice Department. Thanks to the intervention of a plugged-in donor, the group has secured a meeting on Jan. 25 with Attorney General Eric Holder — the same day as the State of the Union. (Holder is on record as supporting the assault weapons ban, but like other administration officials rarely talks about it anymore. ) The groups are also hoping that McCarthy may yet have some pull with her former chief of staff, Jim Messina, now the deputy White House chief of staff and one of Obama’s most influential aides. A McCarthy spokesman said that the congresswoman has been attempting to raise the subject of the magazine ban with Messina, but said he didn’t believe the two had spoken yet.)
But skeptics wonder how far the Messina connection will get the gun control advocates. One former senior law enforcement official who follows the gun issue closely, and who asked for anonymity, noted that after Messina worked for McCarthy he served as chief of staff to Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, a strong gun rights advocate. And Messina at times has served as a White House conduit to the NRA, the former official said.
In any case, this former official predicted that, for all the outside pressure it has been getting, the White House in the end will avoid the subject, concluding it's simply not worth taking on the NRA and that it's likely to lose in the end. “As a matter of political strategy, it would be as bad for him take this on as health care was,” said this former official. “It would become a distraction from everything else.”
Former Vice President Dick Cheney talks with NBC's Jamie Gangel about gun control and why it may be time to re-establish magazine size limits, in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings.
Obama can mention it, but it isn't going to happen.
Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens will not curtail violent criminals.
No more futile legislation until there's a way to guarantee that the criminals won't be the only ones left with guns!
Enforce the laws we already have.
I doubt he'd try. All this supposedly "anti-gun" president has done in two years is INCREASE gun rights.
So remind me of why it should be legal for someone as nutty as this Tucson shooter to own a gun that can take out 30 people all at once.
Toasty, believing that Obama has increased their gun rights would be like spitting on Glenn Becky's face.
Well, apparently Jared Loughner was a well-regulated militia.
You say Loughner is nutty - well, how can you prove that prior to him purchasing a firearm and doing something crazy? At some point, someone has to raise a flag indicating "nuttiness" before any background check can prevent the guy from purchasing a firearm. So, do we start a new government agency to start flagging people as "nuts" in an effort to curtails the right of the crazy and leave law-abiding citizens alone?
Whose responsibility is it to attach the "He's a nut" flag to someone? Where is the line drawn to determine sanity? If I were drawing the line, there would be a lot of people who think they're sane in their own minds who I would label as "Nuttier than a fruitcake".
And by the way...the people that I add to the nutty list probably won't be the same ones that you add to the nutty list. I'm going to start with Chris Matthews and people of his ilk.
Studies show that guns are the leading cause of statistics.
people create statistics, not guns.
There's an old and well practiced proverb: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have the possession of Guns."
Then the law creates the criminal. He who would otherwise be law abiding becomes outlaw at the stroke of a pen.
Read the words of Patrick Henry...
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
I am pretty liberal but i live in a very conservative society. I am a proud Gun Owner though, I voted for Obama and i Will next Election, But taking guns away from the people who are actually responsible and just want to defend there familie's is Radical, Yes make better gun laws or restriction's. But don't punish everyone who pay's taxes and keeps there nose clean by taking there right to have a gun to protect there family.. I believe you don't need an assault rifle to protect your family but we have the right to bear arms. And i'd like to keep that right. I think mentioning the gun violence and trying to get the american people to realize that we need strictor back ground checks and i think people should have a psychological evaluation to be able to just go in and get a gun because the guy who shot everyone in Arizona was NUTS! Lets keep the guns for the responsible citizens who just want to protect themselves and try our best to keep the gun's out of the criminals and the nut jobs hands.
john K; Good work. Clear, fair, precise assessment of gun owners' rights. Might want to reexamine your choice of presidents, though.
Nah I think he got it right on all accounts.
John K., you struck on the very problem with the whole gun control arguement: How do you allow law abiding citizens to maintain their rights to own guns, yet keep them out of the hands of the criminals? I tend to walk center path on the arguement, I am for gun rights but with in reason. The hardcore anti-gun people have it wrong, cause the criminals won't care about guns being outlawed, but the hardcore pro-gun crowd has it wrong as well. Why does a civilian need full auto weapons with armor piercing rounds? Why does a civilian need more than 10-12 shots with a hand gun, unless they are horrible shots, in which case it is probably safer for everyone that they not own guns(the logic behind that is that if they do not take their gun ownership seriously enough to teach themselves how to shoot properly and accurately, what else are they doing wrong?), and even most law enforcement does not use high capacity clips, unless their line of work calls for it(few lines of work would). The logic on either side is not sound, and something needs to be done, outlawing is not the answer, but finding legitimate ways, checks and balances if you will, to help reduce the number of criminals that get guns, and coming up with better tracking methods, and ways to ensure weapons used in crimes are destroyed.
I'm also an Obama supporter with lots of guns. I, unlike John K. believe that sometimes assault rifles are really handy. Then again, I live on 125 acres of farmland, so I'm not the typical case. I own a G3 clone, a folding stock mini-14, a 922(r)'d SKS, another SKS that is still stripper clip fed, and about three dozen other odds and ends, including a couple Glocks and a little 9mm carbine that uses their magazines.
I can't say that I find it shocking that Dick Cheney advocates curtailing American's rights.
The last AWB (HR 6257-110) was proposed and sponsored by ALL Republicans, and NO Democrats. Truth be told, The GOP has a pretty long history of flip-flopping on the RKBA:
In 1969 William Safire asked Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination." Nixon said. He went on to confess that but for his fear of facing gun owners at the polls, he would outlaw handguns and require licenses for hunting rifles. It was that great conservative icon and California Governor Ronald Regan who signed the Mulford Act in 1967. It passed both houses and was signed in a hysteria about black people being able to arm themselves, but effectively made it illegal for any Californian to defend himself by carrying a firearm. In 1986, in the middle of raising taxes for the unpteenth time, then POTUS Ronnie signed the Gun Control Act of 1986, which made it illegal for civilians to purchase ungrandfathered automatics. This is because Ronald Regan was nothing that conservatives pretend he is. They seriously remind me of the Soviets and Lenin.Anyhow, the Herbert Walker banned the importation of automatics that weren't for "sportingpurposes" (because you know how the 2nd Amendment is all about hunting and fishing, right?). The parts kit that built the G3 that I own was banned from importation inthis little deal. Leading up the sunset of the '93 AWB, Dubya said he'd sign the AWB if the Congress sent it to him. The GOP record on RKBA is spotty at best. I guess if you're already a lackey for rich folks, then a spotty record is good enough, though, huh?
Eric-
I would like to dispute your claim that "most law enforcement does not use high capacity clips, unless their line of work calls for it(few lines of work would".
The most popular law enforcement handgun in the United States is the Glock Model 22 Caliber .40 S&W. The standard magazine capacity for this gun is 15 rds. This was the successor to the Model 17 (which began to receive criticism during the mid-90's for the 9mm's stopping power) that has a 17 rd capacity magazine standard and is still employed by many agencies. The Glock 19 is merely a barely cut down version of the 17 which reduces the barrel length and reduces the standard magazine capacity to 15.
(Feel free to check my stats as that is all from memory, don't ya love gun nuts!)
As a law abiding gun owner I see no problem with citizens owning guns whose magazine capacities are identical or less than the majority of law enforcement agencies, as the primary function of a law enforcement sidearm is to engage near and immediate threats.
Running a gun designed for a 15 rd magazine with a 10 rd magazine to me is analogous to having a six cylinder Camaro.
Please explain to me why retired police officers need 33 round pistole mag as McCarthy's bill will allow.
Please explain to me why we have all the guns and the chinese have all the JOBS. Poeple put your energy to a better use or you might need your guns to put yourselves out of your misery GOOD LUCK.
Please explain to me why you need the freedom of speech.
For all of you out there that are believing the anti gun crowd, CHECK THE FACTS!! Civilians in this country CANNOT own a fully automatic firearm of any kind without special permission from the BATFE and payment of a large fee. You must undergo an exhaustive background check and the cost of a fully automatic firearm is really up in the thousands of dollars. Furthermore, the idea that the magazine used in Tuscon is to blame is absurd, in fact it is probably what caused the Glock to jam when he tried to reload. These extended magazines are not reliable and no one in the law enforcement field or military uses them. I can replace my 8 round magazine in my Colt 1911 faster than trying to screw around with an extended magazine and the jams and problem they cause. Since the sunset of the so called assault weapons ban in 2004, firearms crime has gone down markedly in the US. You simply can't ban and blame firearms and the owners of them for this horrible act of a madman. Ban the nuts, not the guns. Ban the criminals, not the magazines and inanimate objects that can't do anything without a hand on them.
Hear!!hear Auto....more magazines are what I buy and use....I've only found one standard magizine for my S&W .40 that just didn't feed properly and that was an easy fix,...safety in numbers ,not amounts!
He keeps losing groups.
No COLA for seniors.
Signed s1147 against smokers (25% of America). (And he is one).
Called republicans "the enemy".
Sued Arizona.
Now, what's he going to say to all us gun nuts?
How many more groups is he going to anger?
Soon he'll have ONLY the illegal invaders, and their families.
poppycock
Why do you think the dems were, and will continue to fight for amnesty for the millions of ILLEGALS. And yes that is the correct word, they are in this country ILLEGALLY, that makes them ILLEGAL, not "undocumented". Oh, back on topic if the pres. is as wise as he seems to think he is, he wont mention gun control, ever!
I am sorry, wasn't it bush who proposed a very good idea to help address the illegal immigration problem that the repugs all shot down as amnesty(even though they had to leave the country and pay their back taxes before being eligible to start the citizenship process? It was actually a very good idea, and a lot better than what any other republican has offered, which at this point seems to be nothing at all.). You tl seem to be part of the problem. Civilians don't need assault weapons, or high capacity clips, not unless they plan to do something very very bad. I am sorry, if you are a bad enough shot that you need more than 10 rounds, why own a gun in the first place
I love how all the righties pretend like they're from Arizona these days. They started doing it around the time that those Minute Men killed Robert Krentz and tried to blame it on an "illegal alien drug smuggler", whatever that is. I think its like an islamfascist, or the liberal media, or Ronnie Regan the Conservative Icon, or his "Silent Majority" or that tax cuts pay for themselves. Just one of those obviously made-up things that righties believe in, but don't really exist here on the planet known far and wide as "Earth".
Its sort of cute, but I bet it gripes the people who are really from AZ, and don't want people to think that they're asses, too.
Anyway, Arizona Poser will be really really sad to see that Obama's approval rating is back up, and that Democrats favoribility is higher than the GOP's, and that Democrats unfavorability is lower than the GOP's. It kind of blows his theories all to hell. I'm sure that most of you find that shocking, that a righty would just talk out his rectum, huh?
jcj:
Huh????
LMFAO. What confused you, Cletus?
These gun control tool bags keep pushing for more gun control laws, but fail to realize and understand that murder is illegal not owning a gun. They need to concentrate their efforts on enforcing homicide laws, if you kill someone you shall pay with your life as soon as the trial is over, not waiting 20 years in death row. Criminals don't follow or obey any laws, if someone ones to kill you a gun control law is not going to stop them.
But doesn't it make sense that making guns harder to obtain might curtail some of the homicides in this country. The US has the highest percentage of legal gun ownership in the world and also the highest murder rate. Coincidence? I think not.
No, it does not coincide, true we have a high murder rate but is mainly do to the fact that a murderer will go to trial and 70 percent of the time he or she gets 20 to 30 years or possibly life in prison. Which means he has free food and shelter for life compliments of tax payers. The other 30 percent that get the death penalty seat in death row for years, again free food and shelter, before they get executed. So, where is the deterrence? I guarantee you that if you start executing murderers as soon as the trial is over like they do in other countries, there will be a significant drop in the murder rate.
Apparently you never tried to purchase a weapon. After you purchase the weapon and fill out Form 4473 you wait 10 days for the background check. Then and only then can you take the weapon home from the shop.
For private sales between states the weapon must be taken to a person with a FFL (Federal Firearms License) then sent to a person in the other state with a FFL. Then your allowed to take the weapon.
In Ca. the weapon must be taken to a licensed dealer wait 10 days then you can take the weapon.
Don't know about other states but would expect them to be very different then Ca.
I'm in favor of the death penalty but a better penalty would be hard labor 18/7 forever, a board to sleep on and bread and water. No TV, no work out, no shower, no hot prison sex (eeeeew), no nothing. The death penalty is the easy way out for too many.... 3 squares a day, a tv and a warm roof over your head fore 20 years. A severe penalty would deter crime.
Intentional homicide rates per 100,000 population by region and subregion, 2004[5]
Southern Africa
37.3
Central America
29.3
South America
25.9
West and Central Africa
21.6
East Africa
20.8
Africa
20
Caribbean
18.1
Americas
16.2
East Europe
15.7
North Africa
7.6
World
7.6
North America
6.5
Central Asia and Transcaucasian countries
6.6
Europe
5.4
Near and Middle East/South-west Asia
4.4
Oceania
4
South Asia
3.4
Asia
3.2
South-east Europe
3.2
East and South-east Asia
2.8
West and Central Europe
1.5
I think not, too.
Of course, the murder rate isn't directly related to guns anyway. People are murdered lots of ways other than guns, and not everyone shot dies. The question of whether an armed society deters violent crime will be reflected in the violent crime rate, not the murder rate. The United States does have a comparably high violent crime rate. But not the highest.
And there doesn't seem to be a corelation there that is damning for gun ownership either, IMO.
Once again, you have a sound, reasoned argument with facts that can be checked, and all you manage to do is confuse the liberal crapheads who have no argument, only emotions with no sense to back them up.
I'd suggest that there are several millions of former and current U.S. military personnel and present day law abiding citizens and law enforcement officers that will vociferously challenge any such action on the part of this or any future administration.
The President can talk about guns till he's blue in the face. It doesn't/won't change anything. Maybe though he should talk about getting all the "violent cop shows" off prime time tv,and while he's at it,take the "reality" shows too! And one more though,"it ain't the gun,it's the gunner". I also agree with above,enforce the laws and follow through.
The problem is that the very people that need to hear: " when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" Aren't listening. We are preaching to the choir!
Probably not. Shootings are sooo routine nowadays. Once on a weekend in Los Angeles, there were 26 incidences involving firearms. There was a shooting yesterday at a school and another one today where someone shot a police officer but the officer was wearing a bullet proof vest. About all obama could say would be to ask do we really need to have magazines even larger than the ones with 33 bullets for the glock. But he would know that the gop, birthers, & tea party would be all over him if he tried to limit bullets fired from a glock prior to needing to reload it. The gop will probably say that it is unconstitutional or socialism to limit the number of bullets that can be loaded into a glock, the killing machine according to the cover story of business week magazine. So obama probably won't say anything.
Marshal; So just what IS your point? BTW the mag held 30 rounds. And SO what. He could have bought two 15 round mags and it takes about two seconds to change mags.
You must have missed the fact that he was stopped while trying to change magazines. So logically if he had had to change earlier there would have been less people hit.
It only takes a second or two to change mags in a Glock. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcHUZuyQjH8
Not really going to slow down a thing. I bet he had a jam in his cheap korean made mags.
agreed sir
As long as I have a gun, no law that this or any administration passes will be able to take it from me. The old adage "use it or lose it" will apply just as well to firearms as anything when they come to take them away.
I am opposed to gun control. What I am in favor of is psycho control and ammo control. If ammo makers don't make cop-killer bullets, the pyschos won't be able to buy cop-killer bullets. If pyschos can't purchase weapons, they won't be able to use them. After all, how many tyrants equip their legions with body armor. Oh, that's right, there are no tyrants around in this country except those in the delusions of the far right.
Define cop-killer bullet!
Wow.
First and foremost, you should find help immediately, if not sooner. Where to start, secondly the term "cop-killer" is a made up term by the anti-gun/anti-freedom lobby. third you obviously have zero knowledge of either "body armor" or firearms. The "bullet proof" vests that police wear or only tested, and effective against some of the lower power pistols. they will not stop high power pistols, or any rifle, even a rifle that fires a round that would not penetrate in a pistol. And now for the most important / ridiculous of your statements, if you can't recognize the tyrant in the whitehouse, you need to pay more attention to what is going on outside of your computer screen. The unprecedented expansion of government, the meddling in private lives, the forcing of people to purchase a product, and / or service, the empowering of non-legislative agencies to invent, and enforce rules, and laws that are well outside the scope of the agencies power is exactly what I would describe as tyranny.
The nuts will just buy them from another country.
What on earth is a "cop killer bullet?" Is that some sort of bullet that can only kill a cop and no one else? I have over 50 years experience with firearms and have yet to discover a bullet that is specific to killing any special individual. I think you have been reading too much anti gun propagada. They come up with this unusual terminology
By definition used in a lot of proposed "cop-killer" bullet legislation almost all centerfire rifle hunting cartridges (i.e. big game, i.e. deer) would fall under that. So much for the Fudd argument of "I'm all for hunting but..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl-ZIo-Wztc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM
ARCHIE BUNKER ON GUN CONTROL
Eliminating the manufacture of certain types of ammunition or magazines with a certain capacity in no way infringes on a citizen's right to have a gun. But should certain types of weapons not be restricted? Should it be legal for anyone to walk into a store and purchase a machine gun? How about a bazooka? How about a rocket propelled grenade? There is no legitimate reason for any private citizen to own any of the above.
Yes there is, but we don't expect you to understand.
And David YOU CAN NOT BUY a machine gun,rocket propelled grenade, bazooka, or for that matter REAL assault weapons in any store. They are illegal and NO ONE is trying to make them legal
Well there is that pesky Constitution which stands in the way of preventing the ownership of firearms. I find no reference to "home defense" or "sporting use" in that document.
Yep most people out there could,nt hit a rabbit without one of the weapons mentioned above.
I don't see why he would. This supposedly "anti-gun" president has only INCREASED gun rights in his two years.
Anytime I hear "gun control" I involuntarily imagine the image of that tank in Teinemen Square with the kid standing defiantly in front of it. The line of tanks stopped. It will be a lot messier here.
Er, the Huttaree don't have tanks.
Leave my gun rights alone. Its that simple. When will the politicians learn its a losing issue in this country.
Outside of the press, the Northeast and a few major cities around the country, this simply is not an issue. The NRA has won. Cope.
right. well, i will say this. i support gun rights. i support them vehemently. because of many reasons. the main one being the final check and ballance to the government: militia's. the ability of the people to legaly throw off a tyrant. that is why gun rights are in the constitution.
He can talk all he wants to like all blow hard hot aired politicians do...I'll be target practicing and couldn't give a care in the world what obozo says. I legally own firearms and what he says means nothing to me at all.
For all you liberals that don't want a "crisis go to waste": I had a deputy sheriff the other day tell me "the day he's told to take guns from Americans is the day he quits". This was his response to the Katrina event where they confiscated weapons after the storm. He said there's just no safe way to disarm Americans "there's just too many". Thanks to Obama's presidency this has increased exponentially. He said if the government declared martial law due to civil unrest and started trying to confiscating weapons it would cause a revolution. So...do you liberals really want to go there? Please try to find something more productive. Or...if this remains your desire, maybe you should just move to Mexico where they are not allow to have weapons. I hear it's working out real well down there.
Who's talking about banning guns? Diminishing magazine sizes though makes sense. Please spare us the infringement on free speech.
Seriously, all Obama has done is INCREASE gun rights.
As a responsible gun owner the 10 riund magazine law isnt that big a deal my 1911s only hold 8 rounds but my 9s both hold 15 and my revolvers 5,6 or 8 as the case my be. Taking 30 rd magazines off the rack next to the gun counter might keep people like laughner from buying them. How about you can only have mags that are as long as the handle of the gun then people who want 30 rds could still get them but they wouldnt be quite as concealable. that way guns that hold 16-19 rds would still be ok
If I remember right there was a law passed around 1909 that civilians could not own a automatic hand gun, because of the 45 Auto that the army used, and I think it was the early 30'ths auto rifle's were banned because of the Thompson. What happened to these laws or are they like all the laws passed in this country just ignored or not enforced. When these laws were passed no one raised hell, because you don't need a auto weapon to hunt. So why do we need auto weapons today? I have a six shooter and a 30-30 learned not to piss off more than 5 people at a time.
Not sure what you're talking about George. The National Firearms Act and the Machinegun Stamp Act were both challenged repeatedly, all the way to the SCOTUS. Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit (later to be folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service), with a $200 tax paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm is ever sold. In US vs Miller (1939) the Supreme Court examined whether the 2nd amendment inhibits the feds from regulating guns, in this case the NFA regulation. Two men transported a sawed off shotgun across state lines and were charged with violating the NFA. The lower court decided the law violated the 2nd amendment, and acquited them. They promptly fled, or died, and the government pursued an appeal, with no representation for Miller and his then-dead buddy. The court found the law does not on its face violate the second amendment, at least as applied to a sawed off shotgun.The determination was that the short barrelled shotgun had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Since the shotguns were not standard issue military weapons in 1939 then there was no "milita application" for them, and therefore they were not protected . This is the ruling that makes it clear that your aforementioned Winchester lever gun is NOT protected, but that an AR-15 IS. That's because the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with the defense of the nation, and one's self. This interpretation would make it quite clear that an "Assault weapons ban" would not stand up to a SCOTUS challenge. You can hardly say that military weapons are protected, except the military-style ones.
BTW, the army didn't issue .45 autos in 1909. The M-1911 was adopted in guess-what-year, George?