District Court Upholds California AWB

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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]

You will never win what you seek.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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]

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]

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]

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.’

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]

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.’

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]

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]

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.’

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]

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.’

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

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

 

[2aguy]

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.’

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]

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]

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]

‘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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

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.

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Ignorant is you