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

[grayfox]

I was reading yet another article where the 9th Circuit upholds the 2A over a state's (HI in this case) law...

I think I have figured out what the libs are actually thinking when they pass these laws...

The 2A says, if I quote it right: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Voila!!!! They found its Achilles heel! CA, NY (and probably Il and CT...) are no longer free states!!!!! HA!!! So they feel no need to continue to kowtow to the 2A. These states are Democrat-machine-run regimes, c'mon admit it!!! Those states, being totally NOT-free, no longer need a "well-regulated militia [necessary to] their security..." so no need to have even a pretense of a 2A there!!!!!!!

You gotta love their (twisted-insane) logic, right?

[montana]

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.)

I quote:Parts and components specifically designed for conversion of a (semi-automatic firearm) to a fully automatic firearm. It did not specify the difference between semi auto intent, use, purpose, sex, gender identity, religion, military service, or political affiliation, just semi auto firearm.

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

You left out this part:specifically designed for conversion of a (semi-automatic firearm) to a fully automatic firearm. Key word (SEMI AUTO FIREARM)!

like[/b] the AR15," which includes the AK74 adopted by Russia, the Stg77 adopted by Austria, the Stg90 adopted by Switzerland, etc, etc.

OK, then the semi auto Rem model 8 was first sold to civilians on October 16, 1900, John Browning was granted U.S. Patent 659,786 for the semi automatic rifle for the Remington Model 8, sold to civilians and then to military and police in limited numbers. Until the NFA tax law was adopted, there was no legal separation, class or distinction between civilian or military firearms. Marketing, "not law" for the potential customer was the only distinction.

http://looserounds.com/556timeline/556dw-1962/[/url])

In July 1960, General Curtis LeMay was impressed by a demonstration of the ArmaLite AR-15. In the summer of 1961, General LeMay was promoted to U.S. Air Force, Chief of Staff, and requested 80,000 AR-15s. However, General Maxwell D. Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised President John F. Kennedy that having two different calibers within the military system at the same time would be problematic and the request was rejected.

(In January 1963, Secretary McNamara received reports that M14 production was insufficient to meet the needs of the armed forces and ordered a halt to M14 production. At the time, the AR-15 was the only rifle that could fulfill a requirement of a "universal" infantry weapon for issue to all services. McNamara ordered its adoption)

In November 1963, McNamara approved the U.S. Army's order of 85,000 XM16E1s and to appease General LeMay, the Air Force was granted an order for another 19,000 M16s. In March 1964, the M16 rifle went into production and the Army accepted delivery of the first batch of 2,129 rifles later that year, and an additional 57,240 rifles the following year.

are[/b] "weapons of war"?

Every firearm designed has it's roots from weapons of war.

[stanc]

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.)

I quote:Parts and components specifically designed for conversion of a (semi-automatic firearm) to a fully automatic firearm. It did not specify the difference between semi auto intent, use, purpose, sex, gender identity, religion, military service, or political affiliation, just semi auto firearm.

The difference is important, however, because it is being argued that semi-auto rifles are not "weapons of war," when in fact some were designed expressly as war weapons.

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.

OK, then the semi auto Rem model 8 was first sold to civilians on October 16, 1900, John Browning was granted U.S. Patent 659,786 for the semi automatic rifle for the Remington Model 8, sold to civilians and then to military and police in limited numbers.

Is the Remington Model 8 a "modern sporting rifle"???

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

In November 1963, McNamara approved the U.S. Army's order of 85,000 XM16E1s and to appease General LeMay, the Air Force was granted an order for another 19,000 M16s. In March 1964, the M16 rifle went into production and the Army accepted delivery of the first batch of 2,129 rifles later that year, and an additional 57,240 rifles the following year.

January, 1962: The USAF classifies the AR-15 as a standard weapon for its inventory. http://looserounds.com/556timeline/556dw-1962/
January, 1963: The USAF receives the final AR-15 of its original 8,500 rifle order. http://looserounds.com/556timeline/556dw-1963/

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

Every firearm designed has it's roots from weapons of war.

LOL. Every firearm has its "roots" in the single-shot, muzzleloading, medieval "hand cannon." That's quite a bit different than being functionally the same.

The point is that the select-fire M16 and the semi-auto AR15 have basically the same combat capability.

(Continued below.)

[stanc]

[41bear]

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.


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.

Once again you are the one who is wrong, and I quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm

In 1903 and 1905, the Winchester Repeating Arms Company introduced the first semi-automatic rimfire and centerfire rifles designed especially for the civilian market. The Winchester Model 1903 and Winchester Model 1905 operated on the principle of blowback in order to function semi-automatically. Designed entirely by T.C. Johnson, the Model 1903 achieved commercial success and continued to be manufactured until 1932 when the Winchester Model 63 replaced it.
By the early 20th century, several manufacturers had introduced semi-automatic .22 sporting rifles, including Winchester, Remington, Fabrique Nationale and Savage Arms, all using the direct blow-back system of operation. Winchester introduced a medium caliber semi-automatic sporting rifle, the Model 1907 as an upgrade to the Model 1905, utilizing a blowback system of operation, in calibers such as .351 Winchester. Both the Models of 1905 and 1907 saw limited military and police use.

You'll take note of the"designed especially for the civilian market" part.

[JASmith]

Bottom lin for me: The “Weapons of War” clause is a troubling additional and likely unconstitutional constraint on 2A rights.

Adding the clause for interpreting which weapons can be possessed by civilians sets a precedent for for further restrictions. All that is needed is another Federal official to declare that all firearms types can be and have been used for warfare and...

[montana]

LOL. Every firearm has its "roots" in the single-shot, muzzleloading, medieval "hand cannon." That's quite a bit different than being functionally the same.

The point is that the select-fire M16 and the semi-auto AR15 have basically the same combat capability.

(Continued below.)

You forgot to comment on this: Until the NFA tax law was adopted, there was no legal separation, class or distinction between civilian or military firearms. Marketing, "not law" for the potential customer was the only distinction.
If we used the lefts logic, shovels "entrenching tools" should be banned since they are weapons of war. The point being made and used by the 2ndA foundation was the AR-15 was not designed specifically and used as a weapon of war. What exactly is combat capability??? I would gather it is material, items, adopted and used by the military and all Stoner type 5.56 rifles have full auto or burst capability. Semi auto only is not a function the military adopts for their 5.56 rifles so this proves they were designed for civilian use, correct??? The Remington bolt action is used by the military, so does that make bolt action rifles illegal for civilians use since it is a weapon of war adopted by the military??? Semi auto pistols and revolvers are used by the military so are they weapons of war which should be banned for civilians??? Knives, optics, night vision, etc are used as weapons of war. Should these items be banned as weapons of war??? It is the weapon of war that is protected under the 2ndA which you have argued against me on in the past claiming the 2A only protects the "militia" military and national guard since the unorganized militia is non existent. You are now using a straw man argument that the win for our gun rights by the 2A foundation is not a win since it separates sporting use "civilian" vs military firearms. So you are saying it is not a win for the 2A since it uses the flawed sporting use clause even though you believe the 2A only protects weapons of war for the militia, "being the national guard and military only" since the unorganized militia is no longer in existence or are you saying there are no legal firearms protected under the 2A for civilians???

[montana]

I understand your concern Jay and agree to a point. The US is already using the "sporting use" clause and is furthering firearm bans to include semi autos in many states because of it. What this case does is stop the huge push back that has been occurring in many communist states like california regarding semi auto rifles with an arguable court case. The only way we restore our real gun rights is with a pro majority 2A supreme court hearing a case nullifying the NFA act "infringement clause" and establishing a correct reading of the 2A. If this case proves to be a win or boondoggle, time will only tell.

[stanc]

Once again you are the one who is wrong, and I quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm

You'll take note of the"designed especially for the civilian market" part.

As if the Winchester Model 1903 and Model 1905 are relevant to the discussion.

Gottlieb said that "rifles like the [semi-auto] AR-15...existed years before the military adopted the fully automatic version."

The AR-15 was originally designed by ArmaLite as a select-fire, military weapon, then years later Colt created the first semi-auto-only variant for the civilian market.

[Double Naught Spy]

The AR-15 was originally designed by ArmaLite as a select-fire, military weapon, then years later Colt created the first semi-auto-only variant for the civilian market.

Design intent is a funny thing and often meaningless. Application can be and often is a whole other matter. I can't repeat this often enough. The AR-7 was designed for the civilian market but was adopted by the military, several.

[stanc]

Quite right. It's a trap, and too many gun people are blissfully walking right into it.

[stanc]

You forgot to comment on this: Until the NFA tax law was adopted, there was no legal separation, class or distinction between civilian or military firearms. Marketing, "not law" for the potential customer was the only distinction.

I didn't see a need to comment on it, because it's true. The only reason that the semi-auto AR-15 even exists is due to Federal and State restrictions on full-auto firearms.

The point being made and used by the 2ndA foundation was the AR-15 was not designed specifically and used as a weapon of war.

I know. However, it's a distinction without a practical difference. The AR-15 was originally designed specifically for, and used as, a weapon of war. The semi-auto variant is just a slightly modified version of that weapon of war.

What exactly is combat capability??? I would gather it is material, items, adopted and used by the military and all Stoner type 5.56 rifles have full auto or burst capability. Semi auto only is not a function the military adopts for their 5.56 rifles...

Although 5.56 military rifles have full-auto capability, they are used almost exclusively in semi-auto mode. Since we're talking about virtually identical firearms, that fire the same ammunition, fed from the same magazines, combat capability is, for all practical purposes, the same.

Shoot, the reason you and others keep giving for having an AR-15 is to be able fight a tyrannical government. If the AR-15 doesn't have the same combat capability as the rifles that would be used by government forces, why on Earth would you want it to wage war??? Personally, I would want a "weapon of war" for that purpose, not a "sporting rifle."

The Remington bolt action is used by the military, so does that make bolt action rifles illegal for civilians use since it is a weapon of war adopted by the military??? Semi auto pistols and revolvers are used by the military so are they weapons of war which should be banned for civilians??? Knives, optics, night vision, etc are used as weapons of war. Should these items be banned as weapons of war???

I would prefer they not be banned. I like weapons of war.

It is the weapon of war that is protected under the 2ndA which you have argued against me on in the past claiming the 2A only protects the "militia" military and national guard since the unorganized militia is non existent. You are now using a straw man argument that the win for our gun rights by the 2A foundation is not a win since it separates sporting use "civilian" vs military firearms. So you are saying it is not a win for the 2A since it uses the flawed sporting use clause even though you believe the 2A only protects weapons of war for the militia, "being the national guard and military only" since the unorganized militia is no longer in existence or are you saying there are no legal firearms protected under the 2A for civilians???

1. I never said that the unorganized militia no longer exists. I said the militia system originally conceived and established by the Founders no longer exists.
2. My position on the 2A is that the wording indicates its intent and purpose was to ensure availability of military weapons to the members of State militias.
3. It is not a straw man argument to opine that it is a very bad idea to reinforce the anti-gun position which originally spawned the "sporting use" criteria.
4. I am saying it is not a win for the 2A because it won't affect anti-gun efforts, and (as LRRPF52 and JASmith noted) could potentially be damaging to us.

[stanc]

Design intent is a funny thing and often meaningless. Application can be and often is a whole other matter. I can't repeat this often enough. The AR-7 was designed for the civilian market but was adopted by the military, several.

The AR-15, however, was designed for, and adopted by, the military.

[montana]

I didn't see a need to comment on it, because it's true. The only reason that the semi-auto AR-15 even exists is due to Federal and State restrictions on full-auto firearms.

True but the illegal sporting arms clause is a reality used by our courts today, no matter how unconstitutional or idiotic it is.

However, it's a distinction without a practical difference. The AR-15 was originally designed specifically for, and used as, a weapon of war. The semi-auto variant is just a slightly modified version of that weapon of war.

The semi auto AR-15 was designed and marketed for the civilian market because of the illegal sporting arm clause. The semi auto AR-15 was never adopted by the US military no matter how little difference or combat capable it is. So under the sporting use clause it is not a weapon of war. Their logic, not mine!

Although 5.56 military rifles have full-auto capability, they are used almost exclusively in semi-auto mode. Since we're talking about virtually identical firearms, that fire the same ammunition, fed from the same magazines, combat capability is, for all practical purposes, the same.

Once again, just like bolt action hunting rifles, pistols, etc used by civilians. This is nothing new even when applying the sporting use clause other than the full auto.

the reason you and others keep giving for having an AR-15 is to be able fight a tyrannical government. If the AR-15 doesn't have the same combat capability as the rifles that would be used by government forces, why on Earth would you want it to wage war??? Personally, I would want a "weapon of war" for that purpose, not a "sporting rifle."

I never said it was less effective. I stated what the sporting use clause described as civilian compatible. The left keeps trying to push farther and farther on this but was stopped in it's tracts. The argument of setting a precedent for the sporting use clause is understandable and I understand completely the unintended consequences it could have. Since the sporting use clause has already been established under other rulings, how harmful this case could be is debatable. Like I have stated before, we need a case against the NFA tax law in of itself and a correct reading and definition of the 2A to reestablish our gun rights as originally intended.

I would prefer they not be banned. I like weapons of war.

I never said that the unorganized militia no longer exists. I said the militia system originally conceived and established by the Founders no longer exists.

Since you have agreed there has never been any law or decree to eradicate the unorganized militia, it must still be intact. The system conceived and established may not have been used in a long time,but it does not mean it is not intact under our law and Constitution. The laws enabling it's mobilization are still very much intact.

My position on the 2A is that the wording indicates its intent and purpose was to ensure availability of military weapons to the members of State militias.

Meaning both organized and unorganized militias, meaning the American citizens.

It is not a straw man argument to opine that it is a very bad idea to reinforce the anti-gun position which originally spawned the "sporting use" criteria.

No, but using the 2A interpretation, "the militia does not mean the people at whole but only people in the military or national guard" and then expressing concern over the sporting use clause since it violets the 2A of every US citizen does.

I am saying it is not a win for the 2A because it won't affect anti-gun efforts, and (as LRRPF52 and JASmith noted) could potentially be damaging to us.

I agree, except we could have had a court case, "up-holding infringements on firearms under the sporting use clause other than full auto concerns" if we had lost. This is why I consider it a win.

[stanc]

The semi auto AR-15 was designed and marketed for the civilian market because of the illegal sporting arm clause. The semi auto AR-15 was never adopted by the US military no matter how little difference or combat capable it is. So under the sporting use clause it is not a weapon of war. Their logic, not mine!

Fair enough.

The left keeps trying to push farther and farther on this but was stopped in it's tracts.

Stopped by what? This supposed "admission" that semi-auto rifles are not weapons of war? That won't even slow the anti-gun activists and legislators, let alone stop them.

Like I have stated before, we need a case against the NFA tax law in of itself and a correct reading and definition of the 2A to reestablish our gun rights as originally intended.

Hear, hear!

Since you have agreed there has never been any law or decree to eradicate the unorganized militia, it must still be intact.

Yes. I've never disputed that the unorganized militia still exists under current law.

The system conceived and established may not have been used in a long time,but it does not mean it is not intact under our law and Constitution. The laws enabling it's mobilization are still very much intact.

Sure, the unorganized militia is still a manpower pool that can be mobilized. But, that doesn't negate what I said: The militia system as originally conceived and established by the Founders ceased to exist more than a century ago.

State Militia (1792) ___________ National Guard (2018)

Membership was mandatory ------ Membership is voluntary
Required to provide own arms ---- Prohibited from using own arms

My position on the 2A is that the wording indicates its intent and purpose was to ensure availability of military weapons to the members of State militias.

Meaning both organized and unorganized militias, meaning the American citizens.

No. Meaning able-bodied, military-age males who were members of organized (i.e., "well regulated") State militias. Not all Americans.