Feds admit in court that AR-15's are not weapons of war

[grayfox]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/23/government-admits-ar-15s-not-weapons-war/

As a part of the settlement in the Cody Wilson/Defense Distributed case in federal court, the federal govt admitted that commonly available AR-15's etc up to .50 cal are not weapons of war. The case, by the way, was fought and won on first amendment grounds but involves the 2A, showing again the close relationship between these 2 rights.

[LRRPF52]

Sounds like the premise is that citizens should not have weapons of war....arms, if you will.

[grayfox]

That premise has been used in far left regimes (think Calif and NY et al) to "justify" restrictions and prohibitions of AR15s and AK's and others that allegedly have "war-like features" such as bayonet lugs, 30-round mags, flash hiders, etc... Their contention, that these (AR15's etc) are weapons of war, therefore regular people should not be allowed to have them, no longer will stand; the settlement contains the admission that that reasoning cannot continue to be used. Now of course the libs will try to come up with something else... but it's a victory for the 2A regardless.

[Double Naught Spy]

So if I put a beta-C 100 round drum mag on my AR15, I have a weapon of war?

[LRRPF52]

So if I put a beta-C 100 round drum mag on my AR15, I have a weapon of war?

That depends on one major thing. Do you have a bayonet lug, or not?

When you go full bayonet lug, you open up the fully semi-automatic operational capabilities of that battle station.

[stanc]

Sounds like the premise is that citizens should not have weapons of war....arms, if you will.

Yup. This "admission" is no victory for 2A supporters. It's another defeat.

[LRRPF52]

Yup. This "admission" is no victory for 2A supporters. It's another defeat.

Reinforces the sporting purposes language of 1968 GCA, which was not Constitutionally-based at all....unless resisting dictators and tyrants is a sport?

[stanc]

Reinforces the sporting purposes language of 1968 GCA, which was not Constitutionally-based at all...

Precisely.

...unless resisting dictators and tyrants is a sport?

Well, war is mankind's oldest team sport...

[grayfox]

--sigh--
Guys, guys, is there never any joy in Muddville! Why can't we just welcome any wins/advances, however small or large? Seems like in every piece of ground that's won back, all I hear is not enough, yebba, yebba yebba (yeah.. but...), boo-birds, something's always wrong.

Gimme a break!

Do you all want such an agreement to go the other direction? They could have just left this point out of the settlement, of course, and let the rationalization used by lefties continue to stand... So that's somehow better for us??

"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always the negative waves...!!" - Oddball, Kelly's Heroes.

[LRRPF52]

--sigh--
Guys, guys, is there never any joy in Muddville! Why can't we just welcome any wins/advances, however small or large? Seems like in every piece of ground that's won back, all I hear is not enough, yebba, yebba yebba (yeah.. but...), boo-birds, something's always wrong.

Gimme a break!

Do you all want such an agreement to go the other direction? They could have just left this point out of the settlement, of course, and let the rationalization used by lefties continue to stand... So that's somehow better for us??

"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always the negative waves...!!" - Oddball, Kelly's Heroes.

Looks like a tactical win for Cody Wilson, and a strategic win for those who want to distribute 3D technical drawings online for sure.

Those of us who have followed the "sporting purposes" argument for the past 2-3 generations also are aware of how language means something, and I'm still trying to find the sporting purposes clause in the Bill of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, as long as it's for sporting purposes."

[montana]

That premise has been used in far left regimes (think Calif and NY et al) to "justify" restrictions and prohibitions of AR15s and AK's and others that allegedly have "war-like features" such as bayonet lugs, 30-round mags, flash hiders, etc... Their contention, that these (AR15's etc) are weapons of war, therefore regular people should not be allowed to have them, no longer will stand; the settlement contains the admission that that reasoning cannot continue to be used. Now of course the libs will try to come up with something else... but it's a victory for the 2A regardless.

I agree, this is just another debunked hyperbolized approach to gun-control they will no longer be able to use for effect and a win for the 2A. Any step forward is better than a step backwards.

[stanc]

--sigh--
Guys, guys, is there never any joy in Muddville! Why can't we just welcome any wins/advances, however small or large?

Your question presumes that this is a 2A win. It is not. At least not in the way that you, Alan Gottlieb, and Breitbart are claiming.

The quoted definition of "Military Equipment" addresses only high-capacity magazines, components for full-auto conversion, and weapon stabilization technology. It says nothing whatsoever about the firearms themselves.

Also, Gottlieb shows an incredible ignorance of the facts in saying: "The federal government now saying semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber are not inherently military means that they are admitting that rifles like the AR-15 are civilian in nature. This makes perfect sense, as they existed years before the military adopted the fully automatic version."

That is blatantly false. Full-auto versions of rifles like the AR15 were adopted and fielded by the world's armies years before the semi-auto variants were developed for the civilian market.

Do you all want such an agreement to go the other direction? They could have just left this point out of the settlement, of course, and let the rationalization used by lefties continue to stand... So that's somehow better for us??

LOL. Anyone who thinks that this definition of "military equipment" is going to stop the anti-gun crowd from calling rifles like the AR15 "weapons of war" is severely self-delusional.

[montana]

The quoted definition of "Military Equipment" addresses only high-capacity magazines, components for full-auto conversion, and weapon stabilization technology. It says nothing whatsoever about the firearms themselves.

Yes it did, it mentioned all semi autos: Parts and components specifically designed for conversion of a (semi-automatic firearm) to a fully automatic firearm;

Also, Gottlieb shows an incredible ignorance of the facts in saying: "The federal government now saying semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber are not inherently military means that they are admitting that rifles like the AR-15 are civilian in nature. This makes perfect sense, as they existed years before the military adopted the fully automatic version."

That is blatantly false. Full-auto versions of rifles like the AR15 were adopted and fielded by the world's armies years before the semi-auto variants were developed for the civilian market.

You are correct but in limited trial numbers. The US did not officially adopt the M-16 until a year after the AR-15 was being sold to civilians,"1964".
Here are a few excerpts :https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...-than-50-years

LOL. Anyone who thinks that this definition of "military equipment" is going to stop the anti-gun crowd from calling rifles like the AR15 "weapons of war" is severely self-delusional.

[bj139]

Whether it is called a sporter or an assault weapon it still has the same firepower so this is definitely a win for the pro-gun group.
Maybe some of those laws in NY, CA and NJ can be overturned.

[stanc]

Yes it did, it mentioned all semi autos: Parts and components specifically designed for conversion of a (semi-automatic firearm) to a fully automatic firearm;

1. It does not say all semi-autos. (Some semi-autos were developed solely for military use; some were designed solely for sporting use; and some are variants of military rifles modified to semi-auto.)

2. It defines the conversion parts and components as "military equipment," not the rifles.

You are correct but in limited trial numbers. The US did not officially adopt the M-16 until a year after the AR-15 was being sold to civilians,"1964".

Like Gottlieb, I said "rifles like the AR15," which includes the AK74 adopted by Russia, the Stg77 adopted by Austria, the Stg90 adopted by Switzerland, etc, etc.

As for the AR15 specifically, it was adopted by the US Air Force in January, 1962. (http://looserounds.com/556timeline/556dw-1962/)

Here are a few excerpts :https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...-than-50-years:
...as the Pentagon and the Army dithered, Colt went in a different direction and pitched the guns to private shooters. In 1963, advertisements started popping up in magazines such as Guns.

"With Colt's new AR-15 Sporter, you're ready for a new hunting adventure," a full-page spread declared. "If you're a hunter, camper or collector, you'll want the AR-15 Sporter."

Unlike their military counterparts, these guns could only fire single shots. Otherwise, they were functionally the same weapons.

Hmm. Since they are "functionally the same weapons," doesn't that mean they essentially are "weapons of war"?