AR15: In common use?

[M14 Shooter]

According to the NSSF, there are around 20 million AR-type rifles in the US.

America has 20 million AR-15 style rifles in circulation, and more guns than people in the country

There are 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the US, enough for each person in the country to own one with 63 million left over.

www.businessinsider.com

In comparison, we currently have around 16.1 million F-series trucks on the street.

https://fordauthority.com/2021/04/there-are-currently-16-1-million-ford-f-series-pickups-on-u-s-roads/

When was the last time you saw an Ford truck on the road?
So often you don't notice, right?

There you go.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

So what's your point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So what's your point?

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use" for traditionally lawful purposes.
This contrasts with "dangeroun and unusual" weapons, which are not so protected.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use" for traditionally lawful purposes.
This contrasts with "dangeroun and unusual" weapons, which are not so protected.

All weapons are dangerous, that's why we call them weapons...

 

[1srelluc]

Looking around the gun room I'd say yeah....But then again so are AKs, SKSs, and FALs.

Younger people forget that in the chi-com import heyday hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of AKs/SKSs were imported and sold here in the US.

I remember back before the Clinton Import Ban I went to Navy Arm's storefront in WV and they sent me to the warehouse to pick-up two crates of SKSs I had bought.....They were stacked on pallets by their thousands. a whole warehouse full and that was just one of the many importers during that era.

I suspect most are still in circulation too.

This ad is from 1989.....I was buying them by the case for $79.00 each and Type 53s for $29.00 each wholesale.

 

[Concerned American]

According to the NSSF, there are around 20 million AR-type rifles in the US.

America has 20 million AR-15 style rifles in circulation, and more guns than people in the country

There are 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the US, enough for each person in the country to own one with 63 million left over.

www.businessinsider.com

In comparison, we currently have around 16.1 million F-series trucks on the street.

https://fordauthority.com/2021/04/there-are-currently-16-1-million-ford-f-series-pickups-on-u-s-roads/

When was the last time you saw an Ford truck on the road?
So often you don't notice, right?

There you go.

So how many yellow cabs are in the US--after yesterday's mass murder, I think they should be banned.

 

[2aguy]

According to the NSSF, there are around 20 million AR-type rifles in the US.

America has 20 million AR-15 style rifles in circulation, and more guns than people in the country

There are 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the US, enough for each person in the country to own one with 63 million left over.

www.businessinsider.com

In comparison, we currently have around 16.1 million F-series trucks on the street.

https://fordauthority.com/2021/04/there-are-currently-16-1-million-ford-f-series-pickups-on-u-s-roads/

When was the last time you saw an Ford truck on the road?
So often you don't notice, right?

There you go.

The problem I have with the phrase, "in common use," is the way the left will work to take guns out of "common use," so they can ban them.......they think long term...

 

[Batcat]

Looking around the gun room I'd say yeah....But then again so are AKs, SKSs, and FALs.

Younger people forget that in the chi-com import heyday hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of AKs/SKSs were imported and sold here in the US.

I remember back before the Clinton Import Ban I went to Navy Arm's storefront in WV and they sent me to the warehouse to pick-up two crates of SKSs I had bought.....They were stacked on pallets by their thousands. a whole warehouse full and that was just one of the many importers during that era.

I suspect most are still in circulation too.

This ad is from 1989.....I was buying them by the case for $79.00 each and Type 53s for $29.00 each wholesale.

I got an email advertisement for AK-47 style rifles today. They are now far more expensive.

AK-47 Rifles For Sale - Buy Online at Classic Firearms

www.classicfirearms.com

 

[1srelluc]

A basic fixed-stock chi-com AK back then was just under $300.00, a under-folder AK about $350.00 so your basic AK cost $707.00 in 2022 dollars. I bought them wholesale so retail would have been a bit higher.

One weird thing, a SKS M that took AK mags was as expensive as a fixed-stock AK due to the extra labor it took to convert the SKS and fit a new stock.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All weapons are dangerous, that's why we call them weapons...

And thus, the "dangerous" in the term "dangerous and unusual" must be in excess of that commonly attached to a firearm.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

And thus, the "dangerous" in the term "dangerous and unusual" must be in excess of that commonly attached to a firearm.

So a bigger clip makes an AR more dangerous? Buddy, a bolt action rifle can have just as big of a clip...

 

[M14 Shooter]

So a bigger clip makes an AR more dangerous?

Magazine.
Only the anti gun loons believe this.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Magazine.
Only the anti gun loons believe this.

Magazine, clip, bandoleer, drum, belt, what the fuck ever. The point is, an AR is just a name. There are plenty other guns that can do the same thing. The AR is sexier though.

 

[fncceo]

All weapons are dangerous, that's why we call them weapons...

Some more dangerous than others ...

 

[Failzero]

My Type 56 “ Spiker “ AK ( Chinese ) is as valuable as my L1A1 SLR ( British )

 

[Abatis]

All weapons are dangerous, that's why we call them weapons...

That doesn't tell us anything about what government's powers might be to regulate guns . . . True, the dangerousness of gun is not really in dispute, but "dangerousness" alone is not the only criteria for hearing government's plea to be afforded a power to restrict an arm's possession and use.

Here is a short primer on "dangerous and unusual" . . .

The first thing to understand is the government doesn't get to begin the conversation demanding a power by claiming, "this gun is dangerous and unusual", and suddenly the citizen must defend his right to possess and use that type of arm.

The determination that a type of arm is "dangerous and unusual" is what remains after the protection criteria is applied and the type of arm fails all of them.

The Supreme Court has established a multi-pronged "test" to find out if a type of arm is beyond the reach of government (AKA, "protected" by the 2nd Amendment).

The arm must be of a type that is, part of the ordinary military equipment / usual in civilized warfare and/or if its use could contribute to the common defense or simply, is of a type in common use by the citizens. SCOTUS in Heller and Caetano clarified also that the 2nd Amendment's protection "extends . . . to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".

If a gun meets any of those criteria, the power claimed by government to restrict its possession and use by individual citizens must be repelled or invalidated if already in force, (in Heller, the Court only used one, the "in common use" test to invalidate the DC statutes). If the type of arm FAILS all those tests, then it could be deemed, "dangerous and unusual" and government could legitimately be afforded a power to restrict its possession and use by citizens.

That "dangerous and unusual" arms have, historically and traditionally been restricted is the origination for Heller's statement that, "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . . [it is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

Again, dangerousness alone is not a criteria to permit restrictions. The arm must also be unusual but unusual does not refer to say, unconventional looks or "style". It actually means, "not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defense".

This concept is explained in the case the Supreme Court used to form its reasoning in US v Miller and where the Court drew its language in Miller's famous paragraph:

"A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?​

​

The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence."​

​

Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840)​

So, when "dangerous and unusual" is stated as a criteria for justifying a government restricting the citizen's possession and use of a certain, specific type of arm, understand that before that term can even be considered, the arm must have failed all the protection criteria.

In the end, the term must be understood to mean and read as describing a specific type of arm that is, dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which is not usual in civilized warfare or otherwise would be of little use in war or self defense.

 

[2aguy]

That doesn't tell us anything about what government's powers might be to regulate guns . . . True, the dangerousness of gun is not really in dispute, but "dangerousness" alone is not the only criteria for hearing government's plea to be afforded a power to restrict an arm's possession and use.

Here is a short primer on "dangerous and unusual" . . .

The first thing to understand is the government doesn't get to begin the conversation demanding a power by claiming, "this gun is dangerous and unusual", and suddenly the citizen must defend his right to possess and use that type of arm.

The determination that a type of arm is "dangerous and unusual" is what remains after the protection criteria is applied and the type of arm fails all of them.

The Supreme Court has established a multi-pronged "test" to find out if a type of arm is beyond the reach of government (AKA, "protected" by the 2nd Amendment).

The arm must be of a type that is, part of the ordinary military equipment / usual in civilized warfare and/or if its use could contribute to the common defense or simply, is of a type in common use by the citizens. SCOTUS in Heller and Caetano clarified also that the 2nd Amendment's protection "extends . . . to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".

If a gun meets any of those criteria, the power claimed by government to restrict its possession and use by individual citizens must be repelled or invalidated if already in force, (in Heller, the Court only used one, the "in common use" test to invalidate the DC statutes). If the type of arm FAILS all those tests, then it could be deemed, "dangerous and unusual" and government could legitimately be afforded a power to restrict its possession and use by citizens.

That "dangerous and unusual" arms have, historically and traditionally been restricted is the origination for Heller's statement that, "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . . [it is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

Again, dangerousness alone is not a criteria to permit restrictions. The arm must also be unusual but unusual does not refer to say, unconventional looks or "style". It actually means, "not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defense".

This concept is explained in the case the Supreme Court used to form its reasoning in US v Miller and where the Court drew its language in Miller's famous paragraph:

"A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?​

​

The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence."​

​

Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840)​

So, when "dangerous and unusual" is stated as a criteria for justifying a government restricting the citizen's possession and use of a certain, specific type of arm, understand that before that term can even be considered, the arm must have failed all the protection criteria.

In the end, the term must be understood to mean and read as describing a specific type of arm that is, dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which is not usual in civilized warfare or otherwise would be of little use in war or self defense.

Alito addressed the "Dangerous and Unusual" argument in Caetano v Massachusetts......

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://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.

------
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.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

---

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the end, the term must be understood to mean and read as describing a specific type of arm that is, dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which is not usual in civilized warfare or otherwise would be of little use in war or self defense.

And thus, the "dangerous" in the term "dangerous and unusual" must be in excess of that commonly attached to a firearm.

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

Magazine, clip, bandoleer, drum, belt, what the fuck ever. The point is, an AR is just a name. There are plenty other guns that can do the same thing. The AR is sexier though.

"The AR is sexier though". Really? An instrument of death is "sexy"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

According to the NSSF, there are around 20 million AR-type rifles in the US.

America has 20 million AR-15 style rifles in circulation, and more guns than people in the country

There are 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the US, enough for each person in the country to own one with 63 million left over.

www.businessinsider.com

In comparison, we currently have around 16.1 million F-series trucks on the street.

https://fordauthority.com/2021/04/there-are-currently-16-1-million-ford-f-series-pickups-on-u-s-roads/

When was the last time you saw an Ford truck on the road?
So often you don't notice, right?

There you go.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The test is whether a weapon is ‘in common use’ or ‘dangerous and unusual’ – pickup trucks are neither dangerous nor unusual, how common they are is therefore irrelevant.

Rather, the question shouldn’t be limited to just AR 15s, but all semi-auto rifles and carbines – the many Kalashnikov variants, FN SCAR 16s and 17s, FN FALs, HK 91s other roller-delayed blowback firearms, M1As, Galils, Czech vz 58s, just to name a few.

Indeed, there are at least another 20 million non-AR platform firearms in the United States.

Consequently, with that many semi-automatic rifles and carbines with 20- or 30-round detachable magazines possessed by private citizens, such weapons are clearly ‘in common use’ and should fall within the scope of Second Amendment protections.