Did the assault weapons ban pass?

Answer 1

Not yet. Heller v. District of Columbia (called Heller II), the follow-up to the 2008 US Supreme Court decision overturning a Washington, DC, ban on personal firearms, District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008), was dismissed from US District Court on March 26, 2010.

Heller II challenges the District's Assault Weapons Ban that makes owning 19 types of assault weapons, as well as clips holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, illegal. This law applies only to the District of Columbia. As of March 31, 2010, the Second Amendment had not yet been incorporated to the states, meaning gun regulations are currently states' rights issues. This may change before the end of June 2010, when the Supreme Court is expected to release their decision on McDonald v. City of Chicago, a 2009-2010 Term case disputing the constitutionality of Chicago, IL, gun regulations.

The District of Columbia is federal territory, which is subject to federal gun regulations; if the US Supreme Court rules in favor of McDonald, the Court may choose to apply the Second Amendment to the states, subjecting residents both to constitutional protections and federal regulations.

Meanwhile, Heller II is in limbo. Although Dick Anthony Heller and his co-plaintiffs are likely to appeal their case to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the paperwork has yet to be filed. This is not surprising in light of how recently the case was dismissed.

If the case is appealed, whichever party loses the DC Circuit appeal will almost certainly petition the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. There is no guarantee the high court will agree to hear the case, however.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion of the Court in DC v. Heller, (2008) (Heller I), has left the question of assault weapons open for the time being, but his writing seems to indicate it may be more difficult for Americans to secure the right to own assault weapons than conventional firearms under the Second Amendment.

"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right..."

and

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

and

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Bear in mind these words come from one of the two most conservative justices on the bench, an indication the final outcome of the assault weapon litigation is impossible to predict.

Answer 2

The federal assualt weapons ban did not pass. However each state or local governing unit can ban them in their jurisdiction.