Search found 1 match

by TreyHouston
Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:09 am
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
Replies: 42
Views: 13505

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:35 pm
Ruark wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:45 pm
QB wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:06 pm
Well......"can be readily RESTORED........" Per the definition of "restore", none of my AR15s can be restored to shoot more than one round per pull of trigger because they never originally could! Nothing to "restore" on my rifles.
I'm not so sure. A good lawyer could have a field day with this - remember the AR was originally a military rifle capable of full auto fire. This capability has been removed for distribution of the rifle in the civilian market. So it may very well be that full auto capability is something that could be "restored" on your civilian AR.
A civilian AR15 can’t be "restored" to an M16/M4, because there are significant differences—and NOT just in the trigger/hammer group, but because the lower receivers on the AR are not the same as the lower receivers on the military rifle. You’d have to have access to some machining equipment and have the skill to use it, and remove metal from the AR lower to convert it to a M16 lower. That is NOT "RESTORATION, that’s PERMANENT MODIFICATION. This. Is. By. Design.....and exactly so as to avoid the kind of confusion the commies are trying to force on us. The AR15 lower receiver does not come from the factory with that metal already removed, and ready to accept a full auto fire control group.

If "Restored" no longer means "Returned to a previous/original state", then ANY firearm which can be even remotely possibly forward-engineered into a fully automatic weapon (which pretty much includes ALL semiautos, including pistols and shotguns) would suddenly be reclassified as a machine gun per the "logic" of the plaintiffs in this case. For example, it will no longer matter that the semiautomatic Glock 17 (how many of us own one of of hands?) came before the fully automatic Glock 18. The fact that the 18 is a modified 17, means that the 17 can be "restored" (to use their idiot terminology) to fully automatic. That would certainly mean the 19, 26, & 34 would also be similarly effected. And since every other Glock pistol made is internally virtually identical to these models, the "ban" can be extended to all the other calibers and models of Glocks.......and that’s just with Glocks. How many remember the XDS recall of a few years ago, because the early runs of those pistols sometimes fired multiple rounds with one trigger pull?

There’s no lawyer good enough to override the evidence that manufacturers of AR receivers can bring to bear in the courtroom. All they’ve got to do is show up with a sample each of an AR15 lower receiver and an M16 lower receiver, and pass them around to the jury with 3 or 4 photos explaining the differences.
I understand, but a big machine gun is a BIG MACHINE GUN to any liberal jury that has never shot a gun living in a big city...

It’s like trying to explain to a squirrel the difference between a car and a race car...

Return to “Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal”