AR-15s ‘Not Protected’ By 2nd Amendment & Can Be Banned, Court Rules In Landmark Decision

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: seasonal

I'm curious whether any of these judges have ever handled a firearm before.

Every time I hear someone use the term "assault rifle" I automatically assume they dont know jack about guns.

what pisses me off more is when the media reports it as "assault rifle" when something happens, I have watched FOX news do this as well an it really really makes me grind my teeth......

its the whole "change the definition, control the narrative" thing.....

originally posted by: buster2010
We need to keep any weapons like the AR's out of the hands of the children of Muslim refugees so they can't go on killing sprees.

I agree, refugees should not be allowed to own guns.

a reply to: rockintitz

No silly this is about scholarly pursuits. This is Law and they know what is best for you.

Well i'm not even an american and i support the 2nd amendment. Guns are no longer the issue anymore. Everything is turned into a weapon nowadays besides there is always the dark web and deranged scumbags don't care doing illegal things anyways. I bet the MSM is going to spin this into a publicity piece that makes gullible people cry and blames the gunowners. Guns are evil balh blah blah. A certain social media faction is going to have a fieldday with this one and jerk each other off.

I'm a little bit confused. I thought the extreme left needs/wants people with guns to overthrow the evil Trump regime and now they do the exact opposite. Is that some kind of backwards logic?

You got my support. Fight this stupidity with all you got.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Just say liberal

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
The_Craven

Joseph Goebbels quotes

a reply to: seasonal

They appear not to know that by it's very definition, an assault weapon fires in fully auto mode, something an AR15 does not.
So is a full ban on semi autos coming next? Or will it be only the 'scary looking' semi autos that one can no longer have?

This is a direct infringement on the Second Amendment. When do they tell us that only muzzleloaders were the intention of the Founding Fathers?

a reply to: seasonal

lately i find that word not descriptive enough.

a reply to: D8Tee

They know.

a reply to: seasonal
Since the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be a check against tyranny...shouldn't weapons of war be expressly permitted?

a reply to: D8Tee

yep

okay sell 9 round magazines for the Ar-15s since they want to try being cute.

a reply to: seasonal


" Judge Rob King said that the court has no power to extend the 2nd amend to weapons of war, "

The Judge is Mistaken . If the Federal Government Ever became the Enemy of the People by Violating their Constitutional Rights , the People have a Right to Declare War in order to Defend their Rights . Therefore Any Arms considered " Weapons of War " would be Protected by the Second Amendment .

a reply to: yuppa

I think the point is that the semi auto is not a weapon for modern war.

This is a simple constitutional infringement.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: yuppa

I think the point is that the semi auto is not a weapon for modern war.

This is a simple constitutional infringement.

I know but until its overturned is what i am getting at.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

en.wikipedia.org...

here it goes into detail on what is an assault weapon.

The term assault rifle, when used in its proper context, militarily or by its specific functionality, has a generally accepted definition with the firearm manufacturing community.[1][not in citation given] In more casual usage, the term assault weapon is sometimes conflated or confused with the term assault rifle.[89][90]

In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified a definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher
Some states have passed more restrictive laws, with more inclusive definitions of assault weapons. One example is the NY SAFE Act, which changed the restriction to one or more (rather than two or more) of the above features, and expanded the restricted muzzle devices beyond just flash suppressors to include compensators and muzzle brakes.

Assault weapons legislation does not further restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.[91]

Interestingly, for strict constructionists, the Constitution is quite clear ... it says nothing about automatic weapons.

It does not guarantee anyone they can buy whatever gun they wish.

The Constitution is quite clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

And it's not being abridged. Americans can hold their arms, bear them, keep them.

This particular kind of firearm though, just isn't going to be available.

The Constitution only says what it says, and it pointedly DOESN'T say anything about the manufacture and sale of guns.

I expect you all to celebrate this decision in light of upholding the Constitution.

a reply to: D8Tee

Since the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be a check against tyranny...shouldn't weapons of war be expressly permitted?

i've posted this this time and time again, one of the first gun laws was every able bodied man provide their own musket, and that manufacturers of muskets make them in the same bore as military weapons.

the milita act of 1792

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia. An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States. I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

they didn't intend on folks showing up with a squirrel gun.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: whywhynot
I've been to war and didn't see a single AR15 there.

Not many outside former military will get that

Actually no; anyone with a basic understanding about firearms should understand the difference between an AR and a fully automatic rifle. One trip to a gun store will inform most people...when they ask to buy an M-16.

And again, contrary to these screwy judges, "AR" does NOT stand for 'Assault Rifle' (contrary to what the media will tell people every single time), it's stands for 'Armalite Rifle'.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Constitution is quite clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Telling me I cannot have a semi auto firearm is indeed infringing upon my rights.