Page 3 of 3

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:51 am
by Alf

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:00 am
by yakadoo
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:46 am
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?
It appears to be a federal district court, as the case has been assigned to Judge Andrew P. Gordon.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:08 am
by K.Mooneyham
yakadoo wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:00 am
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:46 am
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?
It appears to be a federal district court, as the case has been assigned to Judge Andrew P. Gordon.
Thank you for the information.

New question: what gives the plaintiff(s) standing to bring that lawsuit?

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:12 pm
by yakadoo
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:08 am

New question: what gives the plaintiff(s) standing to bring that lawsuit?
According to the filing (https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FILED.pdf), the plaintiffs have standing as the heirs of one of the victims.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:12 am
by K.Mooneyham
yakadoo wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:12 pm
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:08 am

New question: what gives the plaintiff(s) standing to bring that lawsuit?
According to the filing (https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FILED.pdf), the plaintiffs have standing as the heirs of one of the victims.
Again, thank you for the information. I notice that the court filing specifically uses the phrase "assault rifle" versus the more commonly used "assault weapon". So, what will happen when expert industry witnesses are called to testify as to the term "assault rifle", since most people on this forum understand that "assault rifle" is a term that counts the ability to select fire (full-auto or burst in addition to semi-automatic operation) among its defining features? The whole point of the term "assault weapon" was to create a "weasel words" term to mimic the specific definition of assault rifle but without the pesky FACT of those rifles NOT being capable of automatic or burst fire getting in the way. Thus none of the rifles reportedly used in the Vegas crime were actually "assault rifles". I'm sure the lawyers for the plaintiff have something up their proverbial sleeves, but it may not be the ace card they think they have.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:21 am
by dlh
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.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:44 am
by Grumpy1993
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:12 am
yakadoo wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:12 pm
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:08 am

New question: what gives the plaintiff(s) standing to bring that lawsuit?
According to the filing (https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FILED.pdf), the plaintiffs have standing as the heirs of one of the victims.
Again, thank you for the information. I notice that the court filing specifically uses the phrase "assault rifle" versus the more commonly used "assault weapon". So, what will happen when expert industry witnesses are called to testify as to the term "assault rifle"
Nothing. If words mattered, the right of ordinary people to own and carry weapons would not be infringed by NFA in the first place.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:10 pm
by K.Mooneyham
Alright, y'all win. I get the message. I'll stop asking questions.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:06 pm
by tbrown
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:20 pm
Bump firing is a shooting technique. If bump firing is bad, because we want to limit the rate of fire, then it's a very, very, slippery slope that does not end well.
Tell it to DJT and WLP. They're the ones who shoved gun owners down that slippery slope.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:10 pm
by tbrown
Alf wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:51 am
For informational purposes only.
Image

:mrgreen:

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:47 pm
by MeMelYup
If they ever make semi-auto rifles unlawful, a person only needs a tap to thread the gas block and a set screw. All semi-auto rifles will then be bolt action. Don’t have to drown them in a lake. I still prefer semi-auto.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:55 pm
by kayt00
MeMelYup wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:47 pm
If they ever make semi-auto rifles unlawful, a person only needs a tap to thread the gas block and a set screw. All semi-auto rifles will then be bolt action. Don’t have to drown them in a lake. I still prefer semi-auto.
There is always the KaliKey option.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:37 am
by NotRPB
If words mattered, the right of ordinary people to own and carry weapons would not be infringed by NFA in the first place.
My mom was a writer who objected to a song called "Words" because she said words matter.

More on topic: I thought an AR-15 was a "Defense rifle" not one for assaulting.
Controlling verbage/terminology/word choice/Diction is half the political battle for persuading the masses who vote
.
from AR-15.com
26-Years-Ago-Roof-Koreans-appeared-The-Guns-of-the-92-L-A-Riots
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/26- ... 5-2104357/