The Right To Bear Arms

[Rigby5]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

 

[captkaos]

It's about time we had some gun control hearings. I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.

Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.

It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.

Buy a car and move out of the City you'll be safer and then you won't have to worry about other law abiding citizens catching you in the crossfire as they subdue the subway shooter

 

[captkaos]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

Buy a good shotgun for home defense it works great when you absolutely positively have to kill everything in the hallway and you really don't have to be a very good shot with 00 buck

 

[2aguy]

It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.

In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.

Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.

The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....

Heller V only protected sane handguns in your Home, nothing more as long as your stayed within the laws such as if it's required to be registered and licensed accordingly. DC tried to make a gun owner have to either disassemble the handgun or have a trigger lock installed inside the home plus had such a stringent registration and licensing that Heller could never have a reasonable chance of receiving either. And that was overturned. Nothing else was overturn. NO mention of the AR at all. No mention of any weapon or gun outside of the home. In the end, the only thing that was protected was our right to defend our homes using sane handguns and to have them in reasonable operating condition INSIDE THE HOME. We have been through this many times and each time, your BS keeps coming up and each time I point out that it's still BS. Before you bring up McDonald V, McDonald V was just a rehash of Heller V and was a total waste of time.

BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out. The common phrase used today that is acceptable is "AR-15 and it's various clones" has withstood more than a couple of Federal Courts and has been refused to be ruled on by SCOTUS.

And you are wrong again....the lower courts are ignoring Heller......that doesn't make it legal....

BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out

Heller...

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

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

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

Scalia in Friedman v. Highland Park......after Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller....

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong.

The lower courts aren’t ‘ignoring’ Heller – and their rulings are lawful until such time the Supreme Court rules they’re not.

Yes...they are ignoring Heller..... and are relying on the previously split court...4 anti-gun, anti-Constitutional Justices vs. 4 Constitutional Justices to make sure their illegal rulings were able to stand.... As Scalia points out in Friedman v Highland Park...

 

[2aguy]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

Heller is even more specific than that quote....

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.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I didn't bring up Illinois, cupcake.

Nobody lies like Duh-rly. You were the first to mention Illinois. Here it is in post #7343:

Well now. Sure am glad I get to educate you once again. Illinois does have a State Militia.
Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois

You keep telling your story. If you tell it enough times..........

I have proof....Duh-ryl. Everyone can now see that you are absolutely a liar.

Proof about what? You hacked enough out of that conversation that you left out what you have proof about. Stay focused.

Proof that you brought up Illinois. Damn, you can't even remember that you brought up Illinois first, then you can't remember that you denied bringing up Illinois first. Are you off your meds again sweetie?

Oh you mean the part where I resmpoend to someone else that said that the State of Illinois did not have a State Guard? You figure if you edit it enough we all will forget that happened. You are a gun crazy nutcase that will stoop to anything to discredit anyone that might disagree with your random fantasies. We already know you aren't what you claim to be.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.

The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....

Heller V only protected sane handguns in your Home, nothing more as long as your stayed within the laws such as if it's required to be registered and licensed accordingly. DC tried to make a gun owner have to either disassemble the handgun or have a trigger lock installed inside the home plus had such a stringent registration and licensing that Heller could never have a reasonable chance of receiving either. And that was overturned. Nothing else was overturn. NO mention of the AR at all. No mention of any weapon or gun outside of the home. In the end, the only thing that was protected was our right to defend our homes using sane handguns and to have them in reasonable operating condition INSIDE THE HOME. We have been through this many times and each time, your BS keeps coming up and each time I point out that it's still BS. Before you bring up McDonald V, McDonald V was just a rehash of Heller V and was a total waste of time.

BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out. The common phrase used today that is acceptable is "AR-15 and it's various clones" has withstood more than a couple of Federal Courts and has been refused to be ruled on by SCOTUS.

And you are wrong again....the lower courts are ignoring Heller......that doesn't make it legal....

BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out

Heller...

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

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

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

Scalia in Friedman v. Highland Park......after Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller....

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong.

The lower courts aren’t ‘ignoring’ Heller – and their rulings are lawful until such time the Supreme Court rules they’re not.

Yes...they are ignoring Heller..... and are relying on the previously split court...4 anti-gun, anti-Constitutional Justices vs. 4 Constitutional Justices to make sure their illegal rulings were able to stand.... As Scalia points out in Friedman v Highland Park...

Alll the BS aside, it was denied. Denied means it was left unheard. Meaning, no ruling other than denied.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

Heller is even more specific than that quote....

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.

Again, what part of Dissenting are you having trouble with. The Case was denied and you are trying to use the dissenting views as legal support for your views. Dissenting is nothing more than the ramblings of the losing side. It means absolutely nothing in the legal stem of things. Now, stop this crap and stop making shit up.

 

[2aguy]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

Heller is even more specific than that quote....

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.

Again, what part of Dissenting are you having trouble with. The Case was denied and you are trying to use the dissenting views as legal support for your views. Dissenting is nothing more than the ramblings of the losing side. It means absolutely nothing in the legal stem of things. Now, stop this crap and stop making shit up.

The case wasn't heard, so the issue didn't get a decision...but Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller, and clarified Heller with his dissent in why the court should have heard this case....that is the important part in Friedman v Highland Park......

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.

But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.

It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.

In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.

Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.

Actually, that number is closer to 7 to 8 million for the AR and it's clone when you count the real manufacturers numbers and the parts sold to make new ones. The Gun Crazies will make up all kinds of numbers that sound real good but are outlandish. And the AR-15 and clones are the #2 most manufactured gun, the #1 goes to the Model 60 which has about a 10 year head start and is still selling strong even today. Most of us started out on one of those little semi auto tube fed 22 rifles.

The Courts require that you have to be specific in your wording in your Gun Regulating. You have to spell out exactly what gun you are regulating and how. When you use a generic statement that describes a gun that fits a cross section that fits many different guns then that is unconstitutional. But when you specify one then that's constitutional. The accepting description today for the AR is "AR-15 and it's various Clones" legally covers exactly what it says it does. It doesn't encompass the Mini-14 or any of the others. It's specifically covers just the AR-15 and it's various clones. And that has been contested in court and the Courts have upheld that wording.

Yes, you likely are more accurate.
I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.

However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
ARs are not more dangerous than anything. And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals. And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.

Boston, Chicago and a few other places have either heavily regulated them or outright banned the AR-15 and the various clones and it's been contested and has been upheld in Federal Courts. Heller V did nothing to address that issue. It only dealt with normal Handguns. Heller didn't deal with large capacity mags in handguns either. Let's cut to the chase and discuss what Heller V really dealt with.

1. Any State or lower government cannot ban normal handguns from the home

2. No State nor lower Government can force you to have to render your handgun inoperative either by disassembly or a trigger guard inside the confines of your home

3, If a State or lower government does require registration or licensing of a Handgun for the home, it must afford a reasonable method to it's citizens. (Heller was denied this)

That is Heller V DC in a nutshell. This was what Heller sued for and this is what Heller ended up getting. He didn't get everything he wanted but he did get those three things and it did send a message to the States and Lower Governments regarding Handguns and nothing else.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

Heller is even more specific than that quote....

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.

Again, what part of Dissenting are you having trouble with. The Case was denied and you are trying to use the dissenting views as legal support for your views. Dissenting is nothing more than the ramblings of the losing side. It means absolutely nothing in the legal stem of things. Now, stop this crap and stop making shit up.

The case wasn't heard, so the issue didn't get a decision...but Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller, and clarified Heller with his dissent in why the court should have heard this case....that is the important part in Friedman v Highland Park......

The only thing that is important is that the Supreme Court refused to hear it. The rest is Scalia running off at the mouth.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

The Federals have no say in that. And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons. But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific. For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns. But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.

 

[2aguy]

What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.

But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.

It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.

In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.

Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.

Actually, that number is closer to 7 to 8 million for the AR and it's clone when you count the real manufacturers numbers and the parts sold to make new ones. The Gun Crazies will make up all kinds of numbers that sound real good but are outlandish. And the AR-15 and clones are the #2 most manufactured gun, the #1 goes to the Model 60 which has about a 10 year head start and is still selling strong even today. Most of us started out on one of those little semi auto tube fed 22 rifles.

The Courts require that you have to be specific in your wording in your Gun Regulating. You have to spell out exactly what gun you are regulating and how. When you use a generic statement that describes a gun that fits a cross section that fits many different guns then that is unconstitutional. But when you specify one then that's constitutional. The accepting description today for the AR is "AR-15 and it's various Clones" legally covers exactly what it says it does. It doesn't encompass the Mini-14 or any of the others. It's specifically covers just the AR-15 and it's various clones. And that has been contested in court and the Courts have upheld that wording.

Yes, you likely are more accurate.
I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.

However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
ARs are not more dangerous than anything. And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals. And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.

Boston, Chicago and a few other places have either heavily regulated them or outright banned the AR-15 and the various clones and it's been contested and has been upheld in Federal Courts. Heller V did nothing to address that issue. It only dealt with normal Handguns. Heller didn't deal with large capacity mags in handguns either. Let's cut to the chase and discuss what Heller V really dealt with.

1. Any State or lower government cannot ban normal handguns from the home

2. No State nor lower Government can force you to have to render your handgun inoperative either by disassembly or a trigger guard inside the confines of your home

3, If a State or lower government does require registration or licensing of a Handgun for the home, it must afford a reasonable method to it's citizens. (Heller was denied this)

That is Heller V DC in a nutshell. This was what Heller sued for and this is what Heller ended up getting. He didn't get everything he wanted but he did get those three things and it did send a message to the States and Lower Governments regarding Handguns and nothing else.

Those courts are in obvious violation of the Heller decision, the Caetano decision and Scalia specifically states the AR-15 is protected by the 2nd Amendment in the Friedman v Highland Park dissent....

Heller...

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

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

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

Scalia, after Heller, stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected....



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]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

The Federals have no say in that. And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons. But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific. For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns. But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.

You talk out of your ass and think you are being profound....you don't know what you are talking about....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

The Federals have no say in that. And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons. But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific. For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns. But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.

You talk out of your ass and think you are being profound....you don't know what you are talking about....

Let's me translate you response for the others. "You have have your ass handed to you once again and you can't figure out any other way to get around it so you resort to insulting". That just abut sums it up, you gunnutter fruitcake.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.

In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.

Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.

Actually, that number is closer to 7 to 8 million for the AR and it's clone when you count the real manufacturers numbers and the parts sold to make new ones. The Gun Crazies will make up all kinds of numbers that sound real good but are outlandish. And the AR-15 and clones are the #2 most manufactured gun, the #1 goes to the Model 60 which has about a 10 year head start and is still selling strong even today. Most of us started out on one of those little semi auto tube fed 22 rifles.

The Courts require that you have to be specific in your wording in your Gun Regulating. You have to spell out exactly what gun you are regulating and how. When you use a generic statement that describes a gun that fits a cross section that fits many different guns then that is unconstitutional. But when you specify one then that's constitutional. The accepting description today for the AR is "AR-15 and it's various Clones" legally covers exactly what it says it does. It doesn't encompass the Mini-14 or any of the others. It's specifically covers just the AR-15 and it's various clones. And that has been contested in court and the Courts have upheld that wording.

Yes, you likely are more accurate.
I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.

However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
ARs are not more dangerous than anything. And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals. And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.

Boston, Chicago and a few other places have either heavily regulated them or outright banned the AR-15 and the various clones and it's been contested and has been upheld in Federal Courts. Heller V did nothing to address that issue. It only dealt with normal Handguns. Heller didn't deal with large capacity mags in handguns either. Let's cut to the chase and discuss what Heller V really dealt with.

1. Any State or lower government cannot ban normal handguns from the home

2. No State nor lower Government can force you to have to render your handgun inoperative either by disassembly or a trigger guard inside the confines of your home

3, If a State or lower government does require registration or licensing of a Handgun for the home, it must afford a reasonable method to it's citizens. (Heller was denied this)

That is Heller V DC in a nutshell. This was what Heller sued for and this is what Heller ended up getting. He didn't get everything he wanted but he did get those three things and it did send a message to the States and Lower Governments regarding Handguns and nothing else.

Those courts are in obvious violation of the Heller decision, the Caetano decision and Scalia specifically states the AR-15 is protected by the 2nd Amendment in the Friedman v Highland Park dissent....

Heller...

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

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

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

Scalia, after Heller, stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected....



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.

You can post and repost this drivel over and over but it doesn't change the fact the Federal Courts have ruled differently. The ONLY gun that cannot be banned is the normal operable handgun inside the home. But that right ends at your door step. Once you step over that door jam, the Feds can't regulate you but the States and lower Governments certainly can and usually do. All States and lower Governments have some form of Gun Control, some tighter than others. There are no exceptions only degrees. This crap of "No Gun Regulations" is just that, crap. Get over it and start talking about the degrees that are acceptable for a change. Until then you are just another gunnutter fruitcake.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

What came out of Heller was the Handgun ruling. They didn't cover the Shotgun or the Rifle because they can only rule on what is placed in front of them. And Heller was suing about a handgun. If you read a bit further into it, the handgun does come up. I have read that damned thing over and over and don't feel the need to read it over and over again. But you are correct, Heller V did disconnect the home defense weapons from the service in a militia as the first 2 lines of the 2nd amendment no longer are valid as of 1917 due to the adoption of the National Guard Act.

 

[Clementine]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I would have agreed if you had left your tag off. Too bad. Your Political agenda gets in the way of your message.

 

[P@triot]

Oh you mean the part where I resmpoend to someone else that said that the State of Illinois

Exactly...you brought up Illinois. Not me. Then you lied about it (as you always do).