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

[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.

[video=youtube;vuNzcRU1r7c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuNzcRU1r7c[/video]

(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]

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...

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]

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.

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.

[montana]

Fair enough.


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.

I never said it would stop them, but it does take away a case to argue for more encroachment on the sporting gun clause.

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


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


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

The organized militia has taken over the duties of the unorganized militia but it is still still exists and the requirements to be armed and all that goes with it has not ceased to exist. It has been ignored and treated like a weird relative no one wants to talk about but it is still there.
The unorganized militia consist of all citizens not in the organized militia.http://constitutionalmilitia.org/justice-joseph-story/
We could debate this until Gene sends us pipe bombs, so I will agree to disagree with you on this one and let it die.

[stanc]

I never said it would stop them...

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

The organized militia has taken over the duties of the unorganized militia but it is still still exists and the requirements to be armed and all that goes with it has not ceased to exist.

All of that is so wrong. Only the organized militia was required to be armed. The unorganized militia was (and is) a manpower pool not required to be armed.

The unorganized militia consist of all citizens not in the organized militia.http://constitutionalmilitia.org/justice-joseph-story/

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm I don't see anything about women being subject to militia duty.

[montana]

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

With that court case. OK!

All of that is so wrong. Only the organized militia was required to be armed. The unorganized militia was (and is) a manpower pool not required to be armed.

http://constitutionalmilitia.org/well-re...d-militia/
The legal history formed the context in which the Articles, the Constitution, and the Second Amendment were adopted. It provided the standards according to which Militia were judged to be “well regulated”—standards which were already fixed, which had proven eminently workable over time, and with which everyone in every State was or could easily have become familiar. Indeed, the very source of the term “regulated” in respect of the Militia is the body of pre-constitutional Militia Acts. (footnote 1) And the principles these Acts applied uniquely defined “well regulated”—or legislators would never have persisted in employing them in one statute after another, decade after decade. So no need existed for the Articles, then the Constitution, and finally the Second Amendment to specify in detail what these standards were. The “well regulated and disciplined militia” required by the Articles; “the Militia of the several States” which the original Constitution incorporated into its federal system under the authority of Congress “[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining”; and the “well regulated Militia” the Second Amendment identified as “necessary to the security of a free State” then existed in fact within each of the several States, “well regulated” in both fact and law according to the principles developed, proven, and universally applied during pre-constitutional times. Thus, because they arose out of a long and consistent history, and their meanings were well known in fact and well settled in law, the words and phrases used in the Articles, in the original Constitution, and in the Second Amendment must be taken to have been used or incorporated by reference in the exact sense they had acquired during the pre-constitutional era.

Surely WE THE PEOPLE would never have included “the Militia of the several States” as permanent parts of their federal system, and assigned explicitly to them alone the all-important responsibilities “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”, had they not believed, for good and sufficient reasons on adequate evidence, that those very Militia, as they existed in 1788 and were anticipated to continue to exist throughout the immediate future, were “well regulated” in both fact and law.

You are correct in saying they are not required to be armed. But they have every right to be armed.The most recent landmark decision issued by the Supreme Court came in 2008’s Heller v. District of Columbia, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. The case was related to Washington D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership and its requirement that rifles and shotguns be be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" in the home — both of which were found to be unconstitutional.

The Heller decision also held that the right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment isn’t unlimited, meaning that it doesn’t permit individuals "to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The majority opinion, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts held that:

"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm I don't see anything about women being subject to militia duty.

You must not have read it. Quote:
The right of the "CITIZENS" to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

Last time I looked, women were citizens LOL.

[stanc]

All of that is so wrong. Only the organized militia was required to be armed. The unorganized militia was (and is) a manpower pool not required to be armed.

http://constitutionalmilitia.org/well-re...d-militia/
The legal history formed the context in which the Articles, the Constitution, and the Second Amendment were adopted. It provided the standards according to which Militia were judged to be “well regulated”—standards which were already fixed, which had proven eminently workable over time, and with which everyone in every State was or could easily have become familiar. Indeed, the very source of the term “regulated” in respect of the Militia is the body of pre-constitutional Militia Acts. (footnote 1) And the principles these Acts applied uniquely defined “well regulated”—or legislators would never have persisted in employing them in one statute after another, decade after decade. So no need existed for the Articles, then the Constitution, and finally the Second Amendment to specify in detail what these standards were. The “well regulated and disciplined militia” required by the Articles; “the Militia of the several States” which the original Constitution incorporated into its federal system under the authority of Congress “[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining”; and the “well regulated Militia” the Second Amendment identified as “necessary to the security of a free State” then existed in fact within each of the several States, “well regulated” in both fact and law according to the principles developed, proven, and universally applied during pre-constitutional times. Thus, because they arose out of a long and consistent history, and their meanings were well known in fact and well settled in law, the words and phrases used in the Articles, in the original Constitution, and in the Second Amendment must be taken to have been used or incorporated by reference in the exact sense they had acquired during the pre-constitutional era.

Surely WE THE PEOPLE would never have included “the Militia of the several States” as permanent parts of their federal system, and assigned explicitly to them alone the all-important responsibilities “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”, had they not believed, for good and sufficient reasons on adequate evidence, that those very Militia, as they existed in 1788 and were anticipated to continue to exist throughout the immediate future, were “well regulated” in both fact and law.

You are correct in saying they are not required to be armed.

Shoot, you didn't have to go through that lengthy preamble just to admit I'm right.

The Heller decision also held that the right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment isn’t unlimited, meaning that it doesn’t permit individuals "to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The majority opinion, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts held that:

"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on...laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

And that is why the 1934 NFA, the 1986 machine gun ban, and State laws on semi-auto "sporting" rifles are unlikely to be overturned even by a conservative court.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm I don't see anything about women being subject to militia duty.

You must not have read it. Quote:
The right of the "CITIZENS" to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

Last time I looked, women were citizens LOL.

LOL, right back at ya. :p I guess you missed this part:

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen...shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..."

It seems pretty clear that only (white) men were considered to be members of the militia, organized and unorganized.

And yes, women were citizens when the 1792 Militia Act was passed. Second class citizens who were denied the right to vote in every State but one.

[montana]

Shoot, you didn't have to go through that lengthy preamble just to admit I'm right.

Yes I did, "when hell freezes over", people need an explanation..

And that is why the 1934 NFA, the 1986 machine gun ban, and State laws on semi-auto "sporting" rifles are unlikely to be overturned even by a conservative court.

So, you are admitting, "the sporting gun clause is here to stay and the court case will not set a bad precedent" therefore it is a 2A win?

LOL, right back at ya. :p I guess you missed this part:

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen...shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..."

It seems pretty clear that only (white) men were considered to be members of the militia, organized and unorganized.

And yes, women were citizens when the 1792 Militia Act was passed. Second class citizens who were denied the right to vote in every State but one.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but slavery, Jim Crow laws and women suffrage have long since passed. They are all now considered full citizens by golly!

https://www.history.com/topics/black-his...-amendment
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12...ay-around/
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist...-amendment

[stanc]

So, you are admitting, "the sporting gun clause is here to stay and the court case will not set a bad precedent" therefore it is a 2A win?

Heh, heh. Not exactly.

Since so many pro-gun folks are supporting the anti-gun "sporting firearm" idea instituted in the '68 Gun Control Act, I agree it is certainly here to stay.

As for this case settlement, the "military equipment" definition says nothing about semi-auto firearms being either "sporting guns" or "weapons of war."

I don't see any advancement of gun rights coming from pro-gun people continuing to reinforce the "sporting vs military/good gun vs bad gun" concept.

However, I think that the settlement in this particular case will probably have no effect one way or the other. So no, it is not a 2A win. It is status quo.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but slavery, Jim Crow laws and women suffrage have long since passed. They are all now considered full citizens by golly!

Yeah. And the country has been going downhill ever since... :eek:

[montana]

Yeah. And the country has been going downhill ever since... :eek:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x68npzo

[stanc]

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x68npzo

[PAsasquatch]

I am wondering what everyone is getting out of this article. All I am seeing is a good way to justify outlawing "higher" capacity magazines, recoil comps, bipods, pistol grips, foregrips, and certain optics. Am I missing something?

[stanc]

I am wondering what everyone is getting out of this article.

I think it's that some here are so desperate for a 2A "win" that wishful thinking causes them to see it as more than it really is: a 1A win with negligible impact on 2A rights.

All I am seeing is a good way to justify outlawing "higher" capacity magazines, recoil comps, bipods, pistol grips, foregrips, and certain optics. Am I missing something?

It certainly classifies the 60-rd, 90-rd, 100-rd, and 150-rd magazines on the market as "military equipment," leaving them vulnerable. I'm not sure about those other items.