Automatic Weapons Post Bruen; Fire Rate and Mechanism are Irrelevant

The ATF has no leg to stand on restricting automatic weapons

3/9/2024

The Evolution of Firearms and the Second Amendment: A Historical Perspective

The regulation of automatic weapons and their fire rates, particularly in the context of the Second Amendment, has been a contentious issue in American legal and political discourse. The Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen significantly impacted the landscape of gun regulation in the United States, particularly concerning the regulation of automatic weapons and their fire rates. This decision, delivered on June 23, 2022, struck down New York's proper-cause requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm, ruling that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment[1][9][21][26]. This landmark 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Thomas, emphasized a new standard for evaluating gun laws, focusing on whether regulations are "consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation"[1].

Historical Tradition as the Benchmark

The Bruen decision mandates that for firearm regulation to be constitutional, "the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation"[1]. Since automatic weapons (and their modern fire rates) did not exist at the time of the Second Amendment's drafting, there is no direct historical tradition regulating such weapons. This absence suggests that modern regulations specifically targeting the fire rate of weapons may not align with the historical tradition criterion established by Bruen. Sorry Heller, Bruen is the new standard.

Technological Advancements in Firearms

The evolution of firearms from the founding of the United States to the present day has been marked by significant technological advancements. At the time of the Second Amendment's ratification in 1791, firearms were predominantly single-shot weapons that required manual reloading with gunpowder and a ball projectile. The concept of automatic or semi-automatic fire was not realized until much later[2][3][4]. The first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle is attributed to Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher in 1885. Semi-automatic firearms, which automatically load the next round but require a trigger pull for each shot, did not see widespread military adoption until just prior to World War II, with the M1 Garand being a notable example[2].

The development of automatic weapons, which continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed and ammunition is available, began in earnest with the invention of the Maxim gun in the late 19th century. The M16 rifle, a military weapon capable of selective fire (including fully automatic mode), was adopted by the U.S. military in the early 1960s and became a standard issue in the Vietnam War[3].

The AR-15 and Its Variants

The AR-15, a civilian semi-automatic variant of the military M16, was introduced to the market by Colt after they acquired the design from ArmaLite. The AR-15 has since become one of the most popular rifles in the United States due to its modularity and the wide availability of accessories and customization options[2][3][6].

Conclusion

The Bruen decision's emphasis on historical tradition as the cornerstone for evaluating firearm regulations presents a strong argument against the relevance of specifically regulating automatic weapons based on their fire rate or mechanisms allowing for rapid fire "without action". The absence of direct historical analogues for such regulations, combined with the protection of arms "in common use", challenges the constitutionality of modern restrictions targeting these aspects of firearms under the new standard set by the Supreme Court[1][2][3][6].

In the interest of public safety, you have to willingly point a firearm in the direction of the public for any of this to matter; a criminal action. There is zero chance of confiscation of a widely and lawfully owned firearm such as the AR-15 easily capable of being made full auto similar to the M16. The cat is out of the bag.

Citations:

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

[2] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/

[3] https://rooftoparms.com/firearm-technology-recent-and-future-tech-advances/

[4] https://www.libertysafe.com/blogs/the-vault/differences-between-ar15-m4-m16

[5] https://www.lwv.org/blog/understanding-supreme-courts-gun-control-decision-nysrpa-v-bruen

[6] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2/historical-background-of-the-second-amendment

[7] https://library.ucdavis.edu/exhibit/firearms-history-and-the-technology-of-gun-violence/

[8] https://www.wingtactical.com/blog/ar15-vs-m16/

[9] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/

[10] https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii/interpretations/99

[11] https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/technique/gun-timeline/