In my opinion the case should be tossed.
Whether an AR15 qualifies as an "automatic weapon" should itself go through the same administrative review and determination that bump stocks went through. The plaintiffs are probably trotting out the "private attorney general" doctrine to see if that will stick.
Will certainly keep my eye on this case.
Search found 2 matches
Search found 2 matches • Page 1 of 1
- Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:17 pm
- Forum: General Legislative Discussions
- Topic: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
- Replies: 42
- Views: 10716
Is there a "standing" issue and hurdle for the plaintiff? Maybe it could be argued only the Trump Administration can determine whether the AR15 is illegal or not under administrative definitions as they did with bump stocks?...Will be an interesting case to follow.TexasJohnBoy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:37 amhttps://reason.com/2019/07/03/relying-o ... e-illegal/
Relying on the Same Illogic That Trump Used to Ban Bump Stocks, a New Lawsuit Argues That Customizable Rifles Are Illegal
The plaintiffs, parents of a woman who was murdered in the Las Vegas massacre, argue that bump stocks like the ones used in that attack convert semi-automatic rifles into illegal machine guns—a position that has been endorsed by the Trump administration. Therefore, they argue, AR-15s are themselves illegal, since the federal definition of machine guns includes firearms that "can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."