Page 1 of 3

Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:37 am
by TexasJohnBoy
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."

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:55 am
by Havens
988614BD-D290-461B-ADBF-F9B90948A815.jpeg
I may be out of line

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:51 pm
by The Annoyed Man
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."
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.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:06 pm
by tbrown
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.
An 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.



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.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:20 pm
by Soccerdad1995
tbrown wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:06 pm
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.
An 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.



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.
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. Have you ever seen Jerry Michulek (sp?) speed firing a revolver? You quickly reach a logical conclusion that all guns must be banned. The fact that the SCOTUS refused to review the first domino here is troubling. But on the bright side, they also never said that the bump stock ban WAS constitutional, either. If a lawsuit like the one in this thread makes it to them, then hopefully they will be forced to review the entire issue.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:06 pm
by QB
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.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:35 pm
by 03Lightningrocks
If the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, it will be all out war on firearms and they will use any justification they can to outlaw our firearms.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:03 pm
by narcissist
03Lightningrocks wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:35 pm
If the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, it will be all out war on firearms and they will use any justification they can to outlaw our firearms.
:iagree: I must add it will be a actrul War on our soil if they try, just hope all gun owners, law enforcement, military personnel, ex-military ect. Follow the oath they took and we all stand together to fight these outrageous attempts to disarm Law Abiding Citizens. Kinda like the movie "Law Abiding Citizen" but worse!

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:32 pm
by The Annoyed Man
tbrown wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:06 pm
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.
An 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.



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.
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.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:37 pm
by Texas_Blaze
03Lightningrocks wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:35 pm
If the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, it will be all out war on firearms and they will use any justification they can to outlaw our firearms.
Dems had the Presidency, Senate and House in 2008-2010. My gun ownership remained unchanged until 2019 when I became a criminal for owning a piece of plastic accessory.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:42 pm
by 03Lightningrocks
Texas_Blaze wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:37 pm
03Lightningrocks wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:35 pm
If the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, it will be all out war on firearms and they will use any justification they can to outlaw our firearms.
Dems had the Presidency, Senate and House in 2008-2010. My gun ownership remained unchanged until 2019 when I became a criminal for owning a piece of plastic accessory.
Yeah, they were preoccupied with destroying our healthcare system.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:48 pm
by The Annoyed Man
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.
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.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:52 pm
by Texas_Blaze
03Lightningrocks wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:42 pm
Texas_Blaze wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:37 pm
03Lightningrocks wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:35 pm
If the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, it will be all out war on firearms and they will use any justification they can to outlaw our firearms.
Dems had the Presidency, Senate and House in 2008-2010. My gun ownership remained unchanged until 2019 when I became a criminal for owning a piece of plastic accessory.
Yeah, they were preoccupied with destroying our healthcare system.
Sorry I thought you said something about firearms.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:58 pm
by 03Lightningrocks
Texas_Blaze wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:52 pm
03Lightningrocks wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:42 pm
Texas_Blaze wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:37 pm
03Lightningrocks wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:35 pm
If the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, it will be all out war on firearms and they will use any justification they can to outlaw our firearms.
Dems had the Presidency, Senate and House in 2008-2010. My gun ownership remained unchanged until 2019 when I became a criminal for owning a piece of plastic accessory.
Yeah, they were preoccupied with destroying our healthcare system.
Sorry I thought you said something about firearms.
I was but when you hopped in the way back machine, I thought I would try and explain the difference in then and now. If the dems had control of both today, we would have also lost the weapon that piece of plastic connects to.

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:07 am
by Ike Aramba
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."
:thumbs2:

AR-15s are machineguns by the same logic that makes bumpstocks machineguns.