Preach.Paladin wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:51 am The U.S. Constitution specifically recognizes the right of "the people" to "keep" and "bear" arms for lawful use. The widespread ownership of military arms is what gained both the US and Texas their independence and what continues to be essential for liberty and democracy. The second amendment specifically protects law abiding citizen's ownership of military arms like select fire rifles and machineguns (i.e. M16/M4 rifles). Certainly AR15's. It's the NFA that is illegal. End of story.
Anyone who attacks that God given right is an authoritarian or NPC.
Search found 6 matches
Return to “Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal”
- Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:59 pm
- Forum: General Legislative Discussions
- Topic: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
- Replies: 42
- Views: 45889
Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
- Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:36 am
- Forum: General Legislative Discussions
- Topic: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
- Replies: 42
- Views: 45889
Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
Leftist brain = squirrel brain. Good analogy. The thing is, if it goes forward and the plaintiffs win, this case WILL end up in SCOTUS; and there, the outcome for plaintiffs may be far different. But first, this case has to gain traction, and it’s not there yet. Plus, if a court actually outlaws semiautomatic rifles—because that will be the net effect of this case—then the dems can look forward to 4 more years of Trump, and then 8 years of Pence, and GOP control of both houses of Congress again.....and they know it. There are still enough DNC greybeards around to remember what happened when they passed the last AWB.TreyHouston wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:09 amI 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...The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:35 pmA 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.Ruark wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:45 pmI'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.
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 these.....show 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.
It’s like trying to explain to a squirrel the difference between a car and a race car...
BESIDES WHICH, federal law still protects manufacturers from lawsuit over the misuse otf their products
- Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:35 pm
- Forum: General Legislative Discussions
- Topic: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
- Replies: 42
- Views: 45889
Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
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.Ruark wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:45 pmI'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.
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 these.....show 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..
- Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:48 pm
- Forum: General Legislative Discussions
- Topic: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
- Replies: 42
- Views: 45889
Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
Exactly. Even if it were lawful for you to drop in the necessary parts, you’d still have to machine the lower receiver on the inside to accept the parts. Absent that machining, there’s nothing to restore. Whoever ends up representing the defense merely has to point this out.
- Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:32 pm
- Forum: General Legislative Discussions
- Topic: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
- Replies: 42
- Views: 45889
Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
That is the exact opposite of my point. My point is that the AR15 was never (since 1986) able to be lawfully converted to fully automatic fire, and (B) a bumpstock is not an auto sear. It’s still one round fired per trigger pull. Rate of fire is determined by how fast the trigger can be pulled.......just like ANY semiautomatic weapon. The danger of this lawsuit is that it could end up illegalizing ALL semiautomatic long guns....and of course the plaintiffs are well aware of that.tbrown wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:06 pmAn AR-15 with a bump stock only fires one round per trigger pull, the same as an AR-15 without one. A bump stock is not required to bump fire an AR-15. It can be "readily" done without a bump stock.The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:51 pm Good luck with that. The bumpstock ban notwithstanding, an AR15 still only fires one round per function of the trigger—bumpstock or no bumpstock. And since the ban, there’s no lawful way (just like before bumpstocks were invented) to convert an AR15 to fire at the same rate as a fully automatic weapon.
Any intellectually honest person who supported the Trump administration classifying bump stocks as MG must also support reclassifying AR-15 as MG, because they can be "readily" bump fired without modification. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
- Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:51 pm
- Forum: General Legislative Discussions
- Topic: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
- Replies: 42
- Views: 45889
Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
Good luck with that. The bumpstock ban notwithstanding, an AR15 still only fires one round per function of the trigger—bumpstock or no bumpstock. And since the ban, there’s no lawful way (just like before bumpstocks were invented) to convert an AR15 to fire at the same rate as a fully automatic weapon.TexasJohnBoy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:37 am https://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."