In Missouri, Democrats have introduced a bill requiring anyone owning an “assault weapon” or high-capacity magazine to “Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri” or “Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction.”
Minnesota is considering a similar bill:
10.20 Sec. 7. PERSONS POSSESSING ASSAULT WEAPONS ON EFFECTIVE DATE ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS.
Any person who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault weapon has until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:
(1) remove the weapon from the state;
(2) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction;
(3) render the weapon permanently inoperable; or
(4) if eligible, register the weapon as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133, subdivision 5.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
It’s hard to imagine the courts upholding these laws in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in DC vs. Heller, McDonald vs. Chicago and US vs. Miller.
Heller upheld the 2nd amendment as an individual, not collective, right. McDonald applied the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as an individual right to states. Miller held that the 2nd amendment upholds the right to keep and bear arms “in common use.”
Unless the folks in Missouri and Minnesota can argue that so-called “assault weapons” aren’t in common use, these laws aren’t going to pass constitutional muster. Because “assault weapons” such as the AR-15 platform, one of the most popular weapons of all time, are very much “in common use.”
In related news, in Minnesota in 2011 more citizens were killed by knives and fists than rifles.