Page 2 of 3

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:51 pm
by srothstein
This is one of our biggest threats, unforeseen consequences and lawsuits. By accepting the bumpstock ban without fighting it as hard as we can, we set up a potential argument that ARs are easily convertible to machine guns without machining. I can certainly see the argument, even if I disagree with it.

The lawsuit against Academy over the Sulphur Springs shooting has a major potential also. The basic argument is that the magazine is illegal in Colorado so the rifle was sold in violation of the law. The argument in our favor is that they could have sold him the rifle with a ten round magazine and then sold him all the accessory magazines they wanted at the same time. The legal question is if the magazine is an accessory or a part of the weapon. For Academy's sake, i want a ruling of it being an accessory. But for our sake, I want it as part of the weapon because otherwise all of us need to carry limited round magazines in other states because the agreement covers the weapon, not the accessories.

I am sure we have other cases like this that we need to be careful of. We must be careful and fully think through all of the potential ramifications of various laws and lawsuits. The unintended consequences may kill us in the long run.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:17 pm
by dlh
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."
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.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:20 am
by K.Mooneyham
So, worst case scenario. They win, the court says that anything that even remotely looks like a machinegun, if it scares someone who thinks it's a machinegun, well, it's a machinegun. Now, explain to me how that Nevada state case effects OTHER states, including our own. Also, if ALL those guns are instantly machineguns, and somehow Nevada law instantly equals Federal law, then please explain to me how the Federal government will go about ENFORCING it uniformly across the nation. Are they going to suddenly hire thousand upon thousand of agents, whose sole job will be to go door-to-door and confiscate those firearms? Do they think all the LEOs across the nation are suddenly going to stop doing whatever other police work they have to do, just to confiscate those firearms? How many firearms will it apply to? Does that court know where all the firearms are? Yes, I know the predicted scenarios, you're at the range with your AR and suddenly ATF agents descend upon you and whisk you away to a Federal prison for ten years...or you are stopped for a tail-light out and BAM!, same thing, etc, etc. Look, the states where "assault weapons" are already illegal can't enforce those kinds of laws with any degree of efficiency, how do they think they'll enforce it across the nation, where a good portion of LEOs just aren't going to put any effort into it at all?

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:21 pm
by thatguyoverthere
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:20 am
So, worst case scenario. They win, the court says that anything that even remotely looks like a machinegun, if it scares someone who thinks it's a machinegun, well, it's a machinegun. Now, explain to me how that Nevada state case effects OTHER states, including our own. Also, if ALL those guns are instantly machineguns, and somehow Nevada law instantly equals Federal law, then please explain to me how the Federal government will go about ENFORCING it uniformly across the nation. Are they going to suddenly hire thousand upon thousand of agents, whose sole job will be to go door-to-door and confiscate those firearms? Do they think all the LEOs across the nation are suddenly going to stop doing whatever other police work they have to do, just to confiscate those firearms? How many firearms will it apply to? Does that court know where all the firearms are? Yes, I know the predicted scenarios, you're at the range with your AR and suddenly ATF agents descend upon you and whisk you away to a Federal prison for ten years...or you are stopped for a tail-light out and BAM!, same thing, etc, etc. Look, the states where "assault weapons" are already illegal can't enforce those kinds of laws with any degree of efficiency, how do they think they'll enforce it across the nation, where a good portion of LEOs just aren't going to put any effort into it at all?
Others here can and have stated it more eloquently than I can, but let me take a stab at it:

No, LEO's will not have to be taken off other duties to go confiscate newly illegal weapons, because they will NOT go door to door to confiscate weapons. What will happen is that the owners of these now illegal weapons will be driven underground.

Owners won't be taking these newly illegal guns to public ranges for fear of arrest and prosecution for owning an illegal weapon. There will be no more public training classes where you can learn and practice new skills with your now illegal gun. Owners will not carry their newly illegal guns with them in their car or truck, again for fear of somehow being discovered during a minor traffic stop or some such. Owners of such weapons wouldn't even be able to use them at home for actual self defense, again for fear of being arrested and prosecuted for possession of an illegal weapon.

So we can't use it, we can't train with it, we can't carry it. Oh sure, we've still got it. We showed them! They can't come take it from me! But what good is it now? Do we just keep it tucked away in the back of the safe? Or better yet, hidden in the attic or out in the barn?

Of course, there will be some exceptions. Some people have the benefit of owning lots of acreage out in the country, so they can at least take it out to their own private range. But if they're illegal weapons, how long will ammo be commercially available? After all, no public is supposed to own that gun, so there's no need to manufacture and market ammo for it. Sure, load our own. Those supplies, while maybe not drying up completely, will certainly be harder and harder to come by. Plus, lots of folks don't reload anyway. Make a few more would start, but many won't.

Some will continue to carry it with them in their vehicle. Others may go ahead and keep it as their first weapon of choice for home defense and deal with whatever falls out after the fact.

Or maybe you're the brother-in-law of the Sheriff or Chief or the county prosecutor and you're confident that you would never be arrested and/or prosecuted for your "crime." That may be, but are you willing to bet the next 10-15 years of your freedom on that?

So some will not be affected by the total prohibition of these guns. But most will be. But the gun grabbers don't care, because the bottom line is, the gun-grabbers know they don't actually have to take your gun. If they can be confident that we are (mostly) controlled well enough to never actually use our "illegal" gun, then I think they can be satisfied with that. While their ultimate goal of confiscation has not been achieved, the end result is essentially the same, with much less muss and fuss. And if the occasionally law breaker is found to have and/or used this illegal gun, that person is simply arrested, prosecuted and sent to prison for 10-15 years - the perfect example of what we do with law breakers such as this!

But even if some of us are able to continue to use our "illegal" guns - even if we are able to continue to find ammo, and even if we do take it out into the woods to practice with it, and even if we do organize underground training sessions - even if we do carry it in our truck, yea for us. But what about the next generation? After we are all dead and gone, are our children and grandchildren going to continue our "illegal" activity? Are our children and grandchildren going to endanger their and/or their own families futures by keeping illegal weapons around the house many years from now? Are our children and grandchildren as passionate about our rights as we are? Certainly in some cases yes, but I believe in most cases, not so much. Sure, we've taught them to enjoy shooting and everything that goes with it, but are they passionate enough about it to literally risk their lives just to illegally hang on to this old rifle?

No, I think we cannot afford the attitude of just letting the Left drive these kinds of ideas into laws today and then us just ignoring it or thinking it won't amount to much. If that were to actually happen to enough of an extreme, one of the few solutions that would resolve that would be extremely messy. The problem with a huge mess is that somebody always eventually has to clean it up. Do you want to leave the task of cleaning up that mess to your kids or grandkids? I don't.

So I think a better solution is to do everything we can right now to fight - legally and politically - to prevent these kinds of laws from coming into being in the first place. And to work to legally and politically to change those that are already in place. Not that that will be a quick or easy task. But I sure like that solution a lot better than the alternative.

Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth. May God bless this state and this nation. :tiphat:

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:23 pm
by 03Lightningrocks
thatguyoverthere wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:21 pm
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:20 am
So, worst case scenario. They win, the court says that anything that even remotely looks like a machinegun, if it scares someone who thinks it's a machinegun, well, it's a machinegun. Now, explain to me how that Nevada state case effects OTHER states, including our own. Also, if ALL those guns are instantly machineguns, and somehow Nevada law instantly equals Federal law, then please explain to me how the Federal government will go about ENFORCING it uniformly across the nation. Are they going to suddenly hire thousand upon thousand of agents, whose sole job will be to go door-to-door and confiscate those firearms? Do they think all the LEOs across the nation are suddenly going to stop doing whatever other police work they have to do, just to confiscate those firearms? How many firearms will it apply to? Does that court know where all the firearms are? Yes, I know the predicted scenarios, you're at the range with your AR and suddenly ATF agents descend upon you and whisk you away to a Federal prison for ten years...or you are stopped for a tail-light out and BAM!, same thing, etc, etc. Look, the states where "assault weapons" are already illegal can't enforce those kinds of laws with any degree of efficiency, how do they think they'll enforce it across the nation, where a good portion of LEOs just aren't going to put any effort into it at all?
Others here can and have stated it more eloquently than I can, but let me take a stab at it:

No, LEO's will not have to be taken off other duties to go confiscate newly illegal weapons, because they will NOT go door to door to confiscate weapons. What will happen is that the owners of these now illegal weapons will be driven underground.

Owners won't be taking these newly illegal guns to public ranges for fear of arrest and prosecution for owning an illegal weapon. There will be no more public training classes where you can learn and practice new skills with your now illegal gun. Owners will not carry their newly illegal guns with them in their car or truck, again for fear of somehow being discovered during a minor traffic stop or some such. Owners of such weapons wouldn't even be able to use them at home for actual self defense, again for fear of being arrested and prosecuted for possession of an illegal weapon.

So we can't use it, we can't train with it, we can't carry it. Oh sure, we've still got it. We showed them! They can't come take it from me! But what good is it now? Do we just keep it tucked away in the back of the safe? Or better yet, hidden in the attic or out in the barn?

Of course, there will be some exceptions. Some people have the benefit of owning lots of acreage out in the country, so they can at least take it out to their own private range. But if they're illegal weapons, how long will ammo be commercially available? After all, no public is supposed to own that gun, so there's no need to manufacture and market ammo for it. Sure, load our own. Those supplies, while maybe not drying up completely, will certainly be harder and harder to come by. Plus, lots of folks don't reload anyway. Make a few more would start, but many won't.

Some will continue to carry it with them in their vehicle. Others may go ahead and keep it as their first weapon of choice for home defense and deal with whatever falls out after the fact.

Or maybe you're the brother-in-law of the Sheriff or Chief or the county prosecutor and you're confident that you would never be arrested and/or prosecuted for your "crime." That may be, but are you willing to bet the next 10-15 years of your freedom on that?

So some will not be affected by the total prohibition of these guns. But most will be. But the gun grabbers don't care, because the bottom line is, the gun-grabbers know they don't actually have to take your gun. If they can be confident that we are (mostly) controlled well enough to never actually use our "illegal" gun, then I think they can be satisfied with that. While their ultimate goal of confiscation has not been achieved, the end result is essentially the same, with much less muss and fuss. And if the occasionally law breaker is found to have and/or used this illegal gun, that person is simply arrested, prosecuted and sent to prison for 10-15 years - the perfect example of what we do with law breakers such as this!

But even if some of us are able to continue to use our "illegal" guns - even if we are able to continue to find ammo, and even if we do take it out into the woods to practice with it, and even if we do organize underground training sessions - even if we do carry it in our truck, yea for us. But what about the next generation? After we are all dead and gone, are our children and grandchildren going to continue our "illegal" activity? Are our children and grandchildren going to endanger their and/or their own families futures by keeping illegal weapons around the house many years from now? Are our children and grandchildren as passionate about our rights as we are? Certainly in some cases yes, but I believe in most cases, not so much. Sure, we've taught them to enjoy shooting and everything that goes with it, but are they passionate enough about it to literally risk their lives just to illegally hang on to this old rifle?

No, I think we cannot afford the attitude of just letting the Left drive these kinds of ideas into laws today. If that were to actually happen to enough of an extreme, one of the few solutions that would resolve that would be extremely messy. The problem with a huge mess is that somebody always eventually has to clean it up. Do you want to leave the task of cleaning up that mess to your kids or grandkids? I don't.

So I think a better solution is to do everything we can right now to fight - legally and politically - to prevent these kinds of laws from coming into being in the first place. And to work to legally and politically to change those that are already in place. Not that that will be a quick or easy task. But I sure like that solution a lot better than the alternative.

Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth. May God bless this state and this nation. :tiphat:
2 cents? That was at least a dollar fifty worth. :mrgreen:

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:45 pm
by Ruark
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.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:13 pm
by TexasJohnBoy
When can I start saying told ya so?

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:47 pm
by K.Mooneyham
thatguyoverthere wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:21 pm
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:20 am
So, worst case scenario. They win, the court says that anything that even remotely looks like a machinegun, if it scares someone who thinks it's a machinegun, well, it's a machinegun. Now, explain to me how that Nevada state case effects OTHER states, including our own. Also, if ALL those guns are instantly machineguns, and somehow Nevada law instantly equals Federal law, then please explain to me how the Federal government will go about ENFORCING it uniformly across the nation. Are they going to suddenly hire thousand upon thousand of agents, whose sole job will be to go door-to-door and confiscate those firearms? Do they think all the LEOs across the nation are suddenly going to stop doing whatever other police work they have to do, just to confiscate those firearms? How many firearms will it apply to? Does that court know where all the firearms are? Yes, I know the predicted scenarios, you're at the range with your AR and suddenly ATF agents descend upon you and whisk you away to a Federal prison for ten years...or you are stopped for a tail-light out and BAM!, same thing, etc, etc. Look, the states where "assault weapons" are already illegal can't enforce those kinds of laws with any degree of efficiency, how do they think they'll enforce it across the nation, where a good portion of LEOs just aren't going to put any effort into it at all?
Others here can and have stated it more eloquently than I can, but let me take a stab at it:

No, LEO's will not have to be taken off other duties to go confiscate newly illegal weapons, because they will NOT go door to door to confiscate weapons. What will happen is that the owners of these now illegal weapons will be driven underground.

Owners won't be taking these newly illegal guns to public ranges for fear of arrest and prosecution for owning an illegal weapon. There will be no more public training classes where you can learn and practice new skills with your now illegal gun. Owners will not carry their newly illegal guns with them in their car or truck, again for fear of somehow being discovered during a minor traffic stop or some such. Owners of such weapons wouldn't even be able to use them at home for actual self defense, again for fear of being arrested and prosecuted for possession of an illegal weapon.

So we can't use it, we can't train with it, we can't carry it. Oh sure, we've still got it. We showed them! They can't come take it from me! But what good is it now? Do we just keep it tucked away in the back of the safe? Or better yet, hidden in the attic or out in the barn?

Of course, there will be some exceptions. Some people have the benefit of owning lots of acreage out in the country, so they can at least take it out to their own private range. But if they're illegal weapons, how long will ammo be commercially available? After all, no public is supposed to own that gun, so there's no need to manufacture and market ammo for it. Sure, load our own. Those supplies, while maybe not drying up completely, will certainly be harder and harder to come by. Plus, lots of folks don't reload anyway. Make a few more would start, but many won't.

Some will continue to carry it with them in their vehicle. Others may go ahead and keep it as their first weapon of choice for home defense and deal with whatever falls out after the fact.

Or maybe you're the brother-in-law of the Sheriff or Chief or the county prosecutor and you're confident that you would never be arrested and/or prosecuted for your "crime." That may be, but are you willing to bet the next 10-15 years of your freedom on that?

So some will not be affected by the total prohibition of these guns. But most will be. But the gun grabbers don't care, because the bottom line is, the gun-grabbers know they don't actually have to take your gun. If they can be confident that we are (mostly) controlled well enough to never actually use our "illegal" gun, then I think they can be satisfied with that. While their ultimate goal of confiscation has not been achieved, the end result is essentially the same, with much less muss and fuss. And if the occasionally law breaker is found to have and/or used this illegal gun, that person is simply arrested, prosecuted and sent to prison for 10-15 years - the perfect example of what we do with law breakers such as this!

But even if some of us are able to continue to use our "illegal" guns - even if we are able to continue to find ammo, and even if we do take it out into the woods to practice with it, and even if we do organize underground training sessions - even if we do carry it in our truck, yea for us. But what about the next generation? After we are all dead and gone, are our children and grandchildren going to continue our "illegal" activity? Are our children and grandchildren going to endanger their and/or their own families futures by keeping illegal weapons around the house many years from now? Are our children and grandchildren as passionate about our rights as we are? Certainly in some cases yes, but I believe in most cases, not so much. Sure, we've taught them to enjoy shooting and everything that goes with it, but are they passionate enough about it to literally risk their lives just to illegally hang on to this old rifle?

No, I think we cannot afford the attitude of just letting the Left drive these kinds of ideas into laws today and then us just ignoring it or thinking it won't amount to much. If that were to actually happen to enough of an extreme, one of the few solutions that would resolve that would be extremely messy. The problem with a huge mess is that somebody always eventually has to clean it up. Do you want to leave the task of cleaning up that mess to your kids or grandkids? I don't.

So I think a better solution is to do everything we can right now to fight - legally and politically - to prevent these kinds of laws from coming into being in the first place. And to work to legally and politically to change those that are already in place. Not that that will be a quick or easy task. But I sure like that solution a lot better than the alternative.

Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth. May God bless this state and this nation. :tiphat:
I think you looked too far to the future, but I did not specify time period. I meant in the near-term of such a law. However, again, how does a case in a Nevada state court affect the other states, such as ours, other than them becoming like California, but worse?

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:35 pm
by The Annoyed Man
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 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..

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:09 am
by TreyHouston
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 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.
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...

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:36 am
by The Annoyed Man
TreyHouston wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:09 am
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 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.
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...
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.

BESIDES WHICH, federal law still protects manufacturers from lawsuit over the misuse otf their products

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:51 am
by Paladin
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.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:46 am
by K.Mooneyham
Okay, I'll ask a completely simple question because the name of the court confuses me. Is the lawsuit filed in a NEVADA STATE COURT or A FEDERAL COURT?

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:59 pm
by The Annoyed Man
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.
Preach.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:46 am
by Alf
It's much easier to convert an AR-15 to an M-16 than it is to convert a plastic Slide Fire® stock to an M-16.