District Court Upholds California AWB

[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.

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.

Whatever you need to justify your cuckery, shitlib

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

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

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"

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

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.

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

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]

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.

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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"

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

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.

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

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.

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]

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"

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.’

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]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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]

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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]

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.’

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.’

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]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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]

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.