# District Court Upholds California AWB



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 3, 2019)

From the ruling:

_‘Heller…_does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.

As to whether the semiautomatic rifles at issue are “like” the M-16, the Court agrees with _Kolbe’s_ conclusion that “AR-15-type rifles are ‘like’ M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term.”’

Rupp-semi-auto-California-ruling-7222019.pdf

This addresses the fundamental issue with regard to the constitutionality of AWBs, AR 15 rifles and carbines in particular: are such weapons ‘in common use’ or are they ‘dangerous and usual,’ where their possession is not entitled to Second Amendment protections; current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds the latter to be the case.  

Note that regardless how ubiquitous AR platform rifles and carbines might be, that doesn’t mitigate the fact that they are similar enough to M-16s to warrant their prohibition – indeed, the argument that M-16s are select-fire and AR 15s are semi-automatic only is devoid of legal merit.

Also devoid of legal merit are rhetorical semantics as to what is or is not an ‘assault rifle,’ what the military might designate to be an ‘assault rifle,’ and how AR 15s might be marketed to civilian consumers. Just as gun manufacturers lack the authority to determine the scope of the Second Amendment, so too does the military lack such authority.

Therefore, in order for AWBs to be invalidated as un-Constitutional, the ‘argument’ that AR 15s are semi-automatic only and that they are not considered to be assault weapons in a military context needs to be abandoned.

The appropriate argument needs to be that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use,’ particularly as weapons of self-defense.

Of course, the Supreme Court will need to accept that argument and rule that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use’ and entitled to Second Amendment protections.

Until the Supreme Court makes such a ruling, AWBs remain perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment – no matter how ineffective or pointless such a ban might be; that a law might be bad or onerous doesn’t render it ‘un-Constitutional.’


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 3, 2019)

You will never win what you seek.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 3, 2019)

This will be struck down in the appellate court or SCOTUS.  There is to much case law that this leftist POS activist ignored...


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben (Aug 4, 2019)

I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation. 
This is my wish for every white liberal. 
Cheers fuckers.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 14, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Note that regardless how ubiquitous AR platform rifles and carbines might be, that doesn’t mitigate the fact that they are similar enough to M-16s to warrant their prohibition


Simple logic here, which is why you won't understand:
If the AR15 is in common use for the traditionally legal purposes of a firearm, and thus a bearable arm, which, _prima facie_, enjoys the protection of the 2nd, it cannot be among the "dangerous" and the conjoined "unusual" firearms discussed in _Heller_.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 29, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> From the ruling:
> 
> _‘Heller…_does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...




Sorry, dipstick....Scalia already ruled on this and this court is violating all the Supreme Court Precedent you always drone on about....

Please....tell us how this court's ruling comports with current 2nd Amendment Jurisprudence....isn't that how you always phrase it?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. 

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

 The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. 

*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 29, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> From the ruling:
> 
> _‘Heller…_does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...




and this court is ignoring another ruling by the Supreme Court...you know, more current 2nd Amendment Jurisprudence....that you drone on about...

And as to the Dangerous and Unusual portion....from Miller......Justice Alito Addresses that in Caetano v. Massachusetts as he confirms that Heller protects these weapons....

....these rifles are protected and those bans are unConstitutional...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

*First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). *



*Opinion of the Court[edit]*

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing _District of Columbia v. Heller_[8] and _McDonald v. City of Chicago_,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] 

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] 

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted _Heller'_s conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] 

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with _Heller_.[11] 


*Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]*

-----


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 29, 2019)

Please....clayton.....since you drone on and on about current 2nd Amendment Jurisprudence....please, with the actual Supreme Court rulings I have linked to in my posts....actual rulings that pertain to these particular rifles....with the AR-15 mentioned by name by Scalia, the Justice who wrote the opinion in Heller....

Tell us how this lower court is not in obvious and complete violation of current 2nd Amendment Jurisprudence...

Please...we are waiting....


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 29, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> From the ruling:
> 
> _‘Heller…_does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...




 It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment

Since the Supreme Court ruling in Miller actually states military weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....clayton....can you explain how this statement fits with current 2nd Amendment Jurisprudence?

And since Justice Alito, in the Caetano ruling bitch slapped the 4th when they tried to rule stun guns as not protected because they had no military value.......can you explain this sentence according to Alito's ruling in Caetano?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

*First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). *

*

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. 

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
*





https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Nothing in that bans weapons by type........

Next...

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. _Miller_ (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” }}

the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time"........the AR-15 civilian rifle, in particular....is the most "common" rifle in the country, ......over 8 million of them in private hands and semi auto rifles there are over 16 million of them in private hands if not more......


And then, because lying judges on the 4th Circuit tried to use this argument to ban stun guns in Massachusetts, the Supreme Court had to  slap them with the Caetano v. Massachusetts ruling...

This also re addresses the point about these weapons not existing when the Founders put the 2A in the Bill of Rights....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
*Opinion of the Court[edit]*

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing _District of Columbia v. Heller_[8] and _McDonald v. City of Chicago_,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] 

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] 

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted _Heller'_s conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] 

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with _Heller_.[11] 


*Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.*[12]

-----

*----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). *

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. 

*Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.*


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 29, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> From the ruling:
> 
> _‘Heller…_does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


The thing is a semiautomatic rifle isn't an unusual weapon

Semiautomatic rifles have been available to the public for over 100 years


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 29, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> From the ruling:
> 
> _‘Heller…_does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...




This is a rogue court ignoring the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, as well as current 2nd Amendment case law and Jurisprudence........they know that the Supreme Court has very few cases that they hear each year, and that they wait and wait before they hear an issue to let it "ripen" and they also know that Chief Justice Roberts has shown himself to be moveable by public opinion...as he showed us in the obamacare ruling...

So this court expects that their ruling here, which is in violation of the Heller decision, the Miller decision, the Caetano Decision, as well as Justice Scalia's opinion in Friedman v Highland Park.....he was the author of the Heller opinion and in Friedman specifically protects these rifles..... will be allowed to stand by Robert's squishiness and the Supreme Court simply not taking the issue up.....

Clayton knows this is a crap ruling...since the AR-15 is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun, and even revolvers in the way they operate....and this ruling, if allowed to stand, allows the anti-gun judges to rule in favor of bans for all guns that are not lever action rifles, muzzle loaders, or bolt action rifles....

And this ruling also will allow the banning of pump action shotguns...which are actual, current military guns, and all semi-automatic pistols...which are current, military weapons...

This ruling is a big heaping pile of crap, and clayton knows it...but because he is a gun banner.....he pretends this ruling has actual legal value instead of simply being left wing activists pretending to be judges...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 29, 2019)

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
> This is my wish for every white liberal.
> Cheers fuckers.



That was your wish before the ruling.  The Ruling did nothing to change that.  

What the court has done is to try and tell you something that many of us that have spent time on the battle field already know, the AR-15 is the same as a M-16 used in combat and just as deadly for exactly the same reasons.  I won't bother to go into why since it's already been said and you disregard it because of "You can't tell me what to do" is more important than other peoples children's lives.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 29, 2019)

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
> This is my wish for every white liberal.
> Cheers fuckers.


This is as ignorant as it is idiotic and wrong.

‘Liberals’ seek to neither ‘ban’ nor ‘confiscate’ guns.

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 29, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Liberals’ seek to neither ‘ban’ nor ‘confiscate’ guns.



Arguable, but whether they do or not, one can be assured that it will not happen in your lifetime.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 30, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> > I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
> ...



And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.


And as the Supreme Court stated, this does not hold up...

Clayton....you do not understand current 2nd Amendment law or jurisprudence...neither does this court....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

*Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,”* and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “_f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. 

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411. __

*That analysis misreads Heller. *

*The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. *

*Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.*


 The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. 


*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *_


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 30, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.


Tel us how this satisfies the holding form the USSC that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear ALL "bearable arms" for traditionally lawful purposes.
Try to not lie while doing so.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 30, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> > I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
> ...



So a soldier going into battle, given the choice between an M-16/M-4 and an AR-15 will 50/50 split between the two?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 30, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> ...



You are just throwing BS into the ball game.  Some Armies use the AR-15 while others used the M-16.  The Troops aren't given a choice.  Some Armies are still using old British bolt action 303 Enfields because they have no other choice.  

As for the battlefield, both the AR and the M-16 will be used semi auto so there won't be any difference.  Hell, they will both even use the same ammo and magazines and accessories.  Being an old combat vet, I won't care one way or another since I will be using even the M-4 in semi auto setting.  The 3 shot burst is pretty worthless and wastes about 66% of your ammo.  I would rather have ALL my ammo at my disposal.  And in semi auto settings, I get that from both the AR and the M-16.  Your argument is flawed.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 30, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Tell me an army that uses a semi-automatic AR-15 as a standard battle rifle.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 30, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> > I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
> ...


Ignorant is you


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 30, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


A lot of AR 15s are better made than the M16.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 30, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



United States Army for one.  There are some AR-15s that are stamped M-16 in the Armories.  There is at least one Army dude that was issued one in here.  How about the United States Air Force that was issued over 14,000 AR-15s.  Then there are the Armies around the world that cannot get permission to purchase the M-16 or the M-4 but they can purchase the Colt Model 750 (AR-15) and the Colt LE6920.  Or they can purchase the thousands of clones of the ARs sold throughout the world.  The list is shorter for you to tell me what Army DOESN'T use the AR-15.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 30, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



I wouldn't go that far.  I will go on to say that since the AR-15 can be custom built to the individual, it's going to be more virsitile, faster and more confortable.  Plus be a little lighter.  But, that being said, most of the really good parts will come from the same parts bins.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 30, 2019)

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
> This is my wish for every white liberal.
> Cheers fuckers.




You're a fucking pig.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 30, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


I would go that far. Just because it's milspec doesn't mean it's superior.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 30, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No, but it means that the parts meet a standard that all others must meet.  And in order to call it Mil Spec, it must be made by Colt of FN, the only two that have the copyrights to the name Mil Spec for the AR.  Most parts that are top of the line will advertise, "Meets Mil Spec"


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 30, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I would go that far. Just because it's milspec doesn't mean it's superior.


Indeed.  It's not hard to find better than mil-spec barrels and BCGs
"Mil-spec" is a quantitative, rather than qualitative, standard; the fact something "mil-spec" in no way means it is near the pinnacle of efficacy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 30, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


I see you don't understand what milspec is or means.
Milspec doesn't make a part better  and Milspec you can't buy as a civilian


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 30, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I would go that far. Just because it's milspec doesn't mean it's superior.
> ...


It just means it meets military standards.


----------



## miketx (Aug 30, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> > I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
> ...


You are a liar in every post you make here. 2nd amendment aint about self defense.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 30, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Correct- the MILitary SPECification.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 30, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I stated what REAL MILSPEC is.  You need to go back to your buddies in the locker room and have your laugh and keep shooting that junk.  You want real MILSPEC, buy either a Colt Model 750 or a Colt LE6920.  I believe FN produces one model as well.  Or you can roll your own but you are going to buy all your parts from Colt and FN.  Milspec equiv is NOT Milspec.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 30, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


and I stated that mil-spec doesn't make it superior.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 30, 2019)

2aguy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> ...


You keep posting this denial of certiorari, which you clearly don’t understand.

The Supreme Court *refused *to hear this case, it made *no ruling* as to the Constitutionality of the assault weapon band at issue, and consequently such bans do not violate the Second Amendment.

What you are posting is the *dissent* written by Scalia and Thomas, their minority opinions are devoid of the force of law and are in no manner binding on the lower courts – hence the District court’s ruling cited in the OP.

In essence it’s a temper-tantrum on the part of Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are upset that the Court did not grant cert.

Every time you post this you only further demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 30, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




Yes......they did, but Scalia, the one who wrote the opinion in Heller, used his opinion to explain why the court needed to hear the case, and then went on to explain Heller to those incompetent hacks on the 7th Circuit.......he explained Heller in greater detail...you dope...

Moron, the 7th Circuit refused to obey prior Supreme Court rulings, you dope....and Scalia explained why they are morons in his dissent on why the court should have heard the case....since Scalia wrote the actual opinion in Heller, his explaining how the 7th got it wrong has actual merit......


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 30, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



and consequently such bans do not violate the Second Amendment.


Yes....they do... As Scalia explained in Heller, and Alito explained in Caetano.....the fake reasoning the 7th used violates actual Supreme Court rulings on these weapons, which my links and quote show....this court is a rogue court, willfully ignoring the Supreme Court and it's rulings on the 2nd Amendment....

You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Why do you ignorant people ignore the fact that U.S. vs Miller ensured that American citizens rights to military-style weapons were protected, Heller and McDonald made sure that individual right was protected.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

2aguy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


This is true he doesn't


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 31, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.


Tell us how this satisfies the holding from the USSC that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear ALL "bearable arms" for traditionally lawful purposes.
Try to not lie while doing so.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 31, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.
> ...




This is only one time I will say this...at least joe is open about his gun grabbing insanity.....clayton, hiding his behind fake law is just annoying....


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben (Aug 31, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> > I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
> ...


Whatever you need to justify your cuckery, shitlib


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No but in order to be called Milspec, I already stated what the requirement is.  I also already stated that some builds (using mostly milspec parts) where the AR is superior.  But those builds would be well beyond the common persons pocket book.  It's been nicked the Rolls Royce of the ARs.  Even so, the difference between even the 500 buck AR, the LE6920 and the M-16 are so minimal that it's not even worth figuring.  And the test done (all of them) proves that time and time again.  Other Manufacturers try to come up with new designs to replace the AR series (Yes, Dorathy, the M-16 is part of that Family) but as a battle rifle, all of them have proven to be A.  Too expensive       B.  Doesn't do as good a job    C.  Doesn't hold up to battle field conditions     D. Is too Heavy.         In the end, all of the accepted battle field rifles are build on the AR design because the AR is built with  the Battle Field as it's only function.  No pretty cup holders, no lip gloss applicators.  That means, if you class the M-16 as just a battle field rifle then you MUST classify the AR-15 as one as well.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> > I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
> ...


It's not about 'you can't tell me what to do'
It's about stare decisis.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Who cares about milspec? Milspec doesn't mean it's the best you can get.  I can be as effective with civilian marketed parts as I can with Milspec.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You do know you are arguing for the banning of the AR, don't you.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Aug 31, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> From the ruling:
> 
> _‘Heller…_does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


We have to remember that the California judges are leftist, Marxist/Leninist individuals that for the most part, were appointed by their leftist overlords.
They know that their ruling is wrong and don't care. 
The actual purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow private citizens for form regulated militias in defense of their state to combat against any tyrannical government whether foreign.....or....domestic.  Thus, the rifles and pistols would have to be weapons that would give a reasonable defense against tyrannical government troops, so....NOT muskets, but current types of weapons.    And, today's looming tyrannical government, "the leftist, Marxist/Leninist, fake Democratic party.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


U.S. vs Miller ruled that military-style firearms are protected by the second amendment.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Wrong.  It specifically dealt with one weapon and one weapon only.  And it upheld the lower courts.  The sawed off shotgun is outside of ALL sane weapons.  It cannot be used for home or self defense.  It has no place in Military Operations.  It's a short ranged maiming weapon only.  This is the reason it was NOT exempted from the 1934 Firearms Act.  It was actually outside of the Firearms act completely.  Miller V dealt with whether it could be used by Organized Militia and it ruled it could not.  Therefore, it was NOT a Military style firearm at all.  Your whole argument is flawed.  Please stop bothering people with this nonsense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Wrong U.S. vs Miller In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 31, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> From the ruling:
> 
> _‘Heller…_does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


But....but.....but....we never said we were trying to grab your guns.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> From the ruling:
> 
> _‘Heller…_does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


U.S. vs Miller has already made the call
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You can read into it any way you wish but the Courts disagree with you and they are the only ones that count.  

California learned that if you specifically use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" it holds up in court.  Oregon is learning that "Assault Rifle" does not.  California learned from Boston, Mass. which also has an AR-15 specific ban that was the first to be held up in court.

Get over this nonsense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


I read it exactly as they ruled it. Any weapon that would be of use to a militia AR15 and in common use are protected 
Hell, you antigunners call them weapons of war. What better use for a weapon of war than by members of the unorganized Militia?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And Heller says "Normal Weapons".  It made the ruling of 15 rounds in Colorado for Mags stick.  And it bounced the ruling of 10 not stick.  What Heller did was to define "Normal".  It didn't exactly explain it but it let out enough to allow the States to determine what they determine as "Normal".  And if a State decides that an AR-15 is not "Normal" for home or self defense, the State can bar it.  And that's is about as far as the Supreme Court has dared to rule.  Don't look for  the Supreme Court to be your savior.  Your time would be better spent going after the many State Governments.  And,even then, that may not work when the voter decides that your bought and paid for dog and ponies that are in office overstepped their boundries.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Heller used Miller as precedence Miller has been used by most supreme court rulings AR15 and other semi-automatic weapons are protected by the second amendment.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Unorganized Militia are a bunch of gunnutters dress in green pickle suits running around the woods.  In the event of a "Revolution" exactly which of these "Unorganized Militias" will be in charge.  There is going to be more lead thrown at each other than at the Organized Militia, the Military, or the Law Enforcement.  Give a new meaning to the word "Unorganized".


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


The unorganized militia is every able body man and woman and is supported by law.
*10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
*(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



"Other" semi autos might be but the AR-15, when spelled out directly is not.  That has already stood up in court in both California and Boston, Mass. in high Federal Courts.  Keep lying out your ass.  But until you get the Supreme Court to agree with you, the AR-15 can and has been ruled as NOT a self defense or Home Defense weapon.  You can read into Heller till the cows come home but that is all they ruled on.  No mention of anything other than Handguns.  If you are talking about the Dissent, the Dissent is just the losers mouthing off and it doesn't mean a thing legally.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


The AR 15 is the most commonly used weapon and is most effective for use during war or in self-defense.supported by U.S. VS. mILLER 1939


----------



## ptbw forever (Aug 31, 2019)

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
> This is my wish for every white liberal.
> Cheers fuckers.


If it doesn't happen pretty soon then they will all be killed in the civil war that starts next year.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state.  The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government.  You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 31, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> From the ruling:
> 
> _‘Heller…_does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


We have a Second Article of Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

This is the common law for the common defense:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
_
It should not be about "grabbing guns" but about "grabbing gun lovers and regulating them well until we have no more security problems in our free States."


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Wrong.  There are still more Savage Model 60s.  Unlike the Model 60 where you will have one in a home, the AR will have sometimes as many as 60 assigned to one owner.  There are actually more Remington Model 700 homes than AR homes.  The AR is more a fruitcake gun than anything else.  And it's the weapon of choice for fruitcakes trying or doing modern mass shootings.  Now unless you can figure out a way that you can fire the many ARs that one person has in his collection, it won't make the list of the most common used gun.  Who knows, there might be a Guiness World Record to be had here.  Just how many ARs can you put on a rack so that you can fire the most at the same time.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



In the AR-15 case, it's already been done.  And will continue to be done.  You need to buy more while you can.


----------



## ptbw forever (Aug 31, 2019)

hjmick said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> > I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
> ...


Nope, the left deserves all that he said and so much more for what they have done and what they want to do.

White liberals in the west know that white South Africans literally go through all of what Tijn wants to happen to white liberals and yet these monsters gave the black supremacist murderous South African government the green light to keep going in numerous mediums.

Raping and murdering these disgusting animals is too good for them though, they deserve to be beaten until their lungs collapse after being choked and starved for days. Make them wish they were waterboarded every day of their lives until you decide they are ready to be sent to hell.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > From the ruling:
> ...



I'll be so glad when all the states finally ban the AR-15 and it's various clones.  That will do 3 things.  1.  It will take away the cult of Mass Shootings   2.  It will lower the body count at mass shootings.  3.  When you decide to defend your ARs with your ARs, we don't have you in here crying about it since you won't be around anymore.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 31, 2019)

ptbw forever said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> ...




Well, that just makes you a fucking pig as well.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Yes in 1939  the supreme court ruled in favor of weapons of war in the hands of citizens supplied by those citizens weapons in common use of the time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


the AR15 because it is in common use cannot be banned according to the supreme court.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Wrong, duckbill.  It ruled against a sawed off shotgun from being in the hands of an individual and crossing state lines.  Keep reading into it.  Sooner or later, you are going to announce that Miller V also ruled that the Earth is flat.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



hate to break your bubble but the Supreme Court never has made that ruling.  If so, let's see it word for word so I can fact check it.  There is that nasty thing that trips you up all the time.  Facts need to be verified.  And the Courts have been upholding the banning of the AR-15 and it's various clones.  California just in the last couple of days and in Boston

*Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Yes it ruled against sawed-off shotguns but the AR15 is not a sawed-off shotgun it's a weapon of war in common use of the time that is acceptable for the efficiency of a well-regulated militia U.S. vs Miller 1939


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


But yes they did U.S. VS Miller 1939 which Heller and McDonald both used Miller as precedence 
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You are reading into Miller once again.  What's next, is it going to tell you that the Earth is Flat?  Will it predict that someday, some unknown Alphabet Government Agency will fake a moon landing?


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


We are quibbling this sovereign States' right under our Constitutional form of government. 



> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


There are no states rights when it comes to a federally protected right.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


ok name a weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Heller is the most important ruling in modern times.  It made the ruling using the term "Normal".  It didn't define what "Normal" is.  The Feds can't.  That definition is up to the States.  The ONLY reason the Supreme Court was involved was that it was DC which didn't have a State Supreme Court being that it's not a state.  Heller V like McDonald V had to do with a City denying the ability of a citizen to have a handgun in their home.  What came out of both was that they did have that right.  But the City had the right to require registration and licensing of both the weapon and the person.  Reading anything else from those two are right up there with claiming that they also ruled that Space Aliens are kept in a deep basement in Cleveland.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



How about the Air Gun.  Or the Brown Bess.  Or the Bowie Knife.  These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time.  Could this be gun regulation in reverse?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Heller got the precedence from MILLER. In common use of the time


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And the Supreme Court applied it to Handguns.  They also went as far to say "Normal" handguns which has been used as a presedense to a couple of other court rulings where 10 rounds was too few and more than 15 was too many.  The operative word here is "Normal".  The AR is not a Normal Home or personal Defense Weapon by any stretch of the imagination.  A M-203 makes a lousy home defense weapon.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The only thing that came out of Miller was that a 12 in barreled no choak shotgun has no use in either a military or home defense.  And that is all it said.  And Heller didn't address anything other than the "Normal" handgun to be used in Home Defense.  

Stop this nonsense.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Especially if they are weapons or war.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


No militia has been armed with sidearms alone they had rifles therefore you are mistakenly wrong


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


No incorrect this is what came out of Miller those weapons of war isn't that what you antigunners call the AR15?
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



There we no real antigunners back then.  There was a whole bunch of antimobster people that got tired of being slaughtered by the overspray when the Mobs would try and kill each other.  Don't let a little history and facts get in your way.  Now move on to the next stupid subject.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Considering the ruling of Miller specifically said that the 12 in shotgun barrel had no use in either the Military or Home Defense, it appears you are in error and are reading into it something that isn't there.  What's next, are you going to read in where the Sun revolves around the Sun?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Not talking about back then dumbass but yes since you mentioned it there were antigunners called democrats that tried to keep blacks from being armed. And anything you said after that was irrelevant.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


OK, the AR15 is not a sawed-off shotgun and is the weapon that does have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Which was expanded upon _Heller _to include all weapons in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
The anti-gun loons have to lie to themselves.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I agree this issue needs to be put to rest and for good.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




They used sawed off shotguns in the trenches of World War 1, you dipstick...


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




No, moron, it doesn't hold up in court......the 9th and the 7th and the 4th circuit are rogue courts, and they are deliberately ignoring Heller, Miller, Caetano, and what Scalia specifically explained in Friedman v Highland park which came after Heller....he stated the AR-15, by name, is protected as are all similar rifles.....you moron.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 31, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


sawed-off shotguns were the equivalent to a handgun which at the time most members of at the unorganized militia would not be armed with a handgun.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




You don't know what you are talking about...

Heller....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

*--------*


Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. 

And as to the Dangerous and Unusual portion....from Miller......Justice Alito Addresses that in Caetano v. Massachusetts as he confirms that Heller protects these weapons....

....these rifles are protected and those bans are unConstitutional...

Caetano....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

*Opinion of the Court[edit]*

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing _District of Columbia v. Heller_[8] and _McDonald v. City of Chicago_,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] 

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] 

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted _Heller'_s conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] 

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with _Heller_.[11] 


*Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]*

-----

Friedman v Highland Park...Scalia wrote this after Heller.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. 
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
 The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. 
*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Conversing with you reminds me of an old intro to a TV show from the 50s.  You wish to control reality to suit yourself


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Then you gunnuters hammer away hoping to drown out any people that "Might" disagree with you even the slightest amount.  Reminds of the updated version


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Aug 31, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


*I feel the same here I love the old 30 06 and the 308*

*One shot one kill.   *


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 1, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


antigun nuts want what they can't have


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 1, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


You're the one not playing with a full deck.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 1, 2019)

I'll let the gunnuters have the last say.  They will go on and on and frankly, I need to check on the stew I am making for tomarrow.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 1, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I'll let the gunnuters have the last say.  They will go on and on and frankly, I need to check on the stew I am making for tomarrow.


Would you like to know why you lost this debate?


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


lol.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well until we have no security problems in our free States. 



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. *The legislature shall* provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



That is the Common law for the Common defense which any Common judge can adjudicate.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 1, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The bill of rights has been federally protected since they were written in 1792


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 1, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


ok we have a second amendment but why do we continue to visit this basic right?


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States.  It says so in the, Intent and Purpose for the second clause, clause.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Because you keep missing the whole and entire point fo our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

It is about States' sovereign right to their own security.


----------



## Flash (Sep 1, 2019)

Just like politicians and government thugs no judge has the legal authority to infringe upon the right the keep and bear arms.  If they do, like this court did, then they are acting illegally.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 1, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


It's also a federally protected right just as the 14th is which states a state cannot deprive citizens of that state of their rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 1, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I'm not overlooking anything the second amendment is federally protected like all our rights spelled out in the bill of rights. Just as the 14th amendments states.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I'll let the gunnuters have the last say.  They will go on and on and frankly, I need to check on the stew I am making for tomarrow.
> ...



I didn't lose the debate.  I proved that you gunnutters just gang up and overload the airways with your nonsense.  Actually, if you checked, another mass shooting just happened in Texas.  Makes your argument pretty empty.  Guess that 17 month old that was shot would understand your reasoning.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The Bill of Rights was a  feel good document that was nothing more than a reprint of the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution of the United States.  The Bill of Rights has ZERO legal weight.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 1, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


You've done nothing but made noise just like you have done in this last post 
I'll drink a beer for the kid if that makes you feel better.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 1, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


the bill of rights told the government what it must do. It's been watered down by idiots like you.
You do realize the bill of rights is law of the land?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I support the increasing the regulations on the ARs and the various AR clones.  Simple as that.  What made this possible is the fact that in Texas, you can openly display a totally serviceable AR in public and it's legal.  It was just a matter of time when someone was going to take advantage of this and go on a shooting spree.  

Save your beer and support a cop that was shot

*Expenses for Officer Zack Owens*


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I go by the Constitution.  It has the legal binding.  Unlike you, I don't pick and choose what parts that I will support and disregard all the rest.  The Bill of Rights was a political document for feel gooding a couple or three people and that's all.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 1, 2019)

Flash said:


> Just like politicians and government thugs no judge has the legal authority to infringe upon the right the keep and bear arms.  If they do, like this court did, then they are acting illegally.


This is a sovereign State's right, secured by our Second Amendment:


> SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)


Our Ninth and Tenth Amendments apply.

This is a Due Process issue that must be resolved by the citizenry of this sovereign State.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control.

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
   Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Our Second Amendment cannot be about the whole and entire concept of natural rights simply Because all terms expressed are collective and plural, not singular or individual.

Thus, right wing implied fantasy cannot be faithful to our supreme law of the land.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 4, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.


Tell us how this satisfies the holding from the USSC that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear ALL "bearable arms" for traditionally lawful purposes.
Try to not lie while doing so.


----------

