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

[grayfox]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government...apons-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.

[INDENT]In offering a definition of “military equipment” the settlement says:

[INDENT] The phrase “Military Equipment” means (1) Drums and other magazines for firearms to 50 caliber (12.7 mm) inclusive with a capacity greater than 50 rounds, regardless of the jurisdiction of the firearm, and specially designed parts and components therefor; (2) Parts and components specifically designed for conversion of a semi-automatic firearm to a fully automatic firearm; (3) Accessories or attachments specifically designed to automatically stabilize aim (other than gun rests) or for automatic targeting, and specifically designed parts and components therefor.
[/INDENT]

Attorneys in the case expounded on the amended regulations by pointing out that the settlement “expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50 caliber widely available in retail outlets in the United States and abroad [a scope that includes AR-15 and other assault-style rifles], are not inherently military.”[/INDENT]

[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...

[video=youtube;KNjp8B93nw4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNjp8B93nw4[/video]

[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/artic...n-50-years:
fromMcNamara's super rifle never materialized. By 1966, both the Army and Marine Corps decided to issue M-16s to all troops heading to Vietnam, opening the door for the gun to become the military's standard firearm.

So, 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. The AR-15 Sporter would set you back just shy of $190 — around $1,485 in 2016.

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.

This I will agree with but:Gottlieb added, “Gun rights organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation will now be able to use this government admission in debate and courtrooms from New York to California.”

[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/artic...n-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"? :eek:

[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 quotearts 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 partpecifically 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"? :eek:

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 quotearts 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.

:confused: 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"? :eek:

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.

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

(Continued below.)

[stanc]

[video=youtube;2vdGO0KQ4tE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vdGO0KQ4tE[/video]

[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.