This is effectively a ban on ALL semi-autos, because you can find a high-capacity mag for ANY semi-auto.
Posted on 10/11/2015 4:23:14 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
This is effectively a ban on ALL semi-autos, because you can find a high-capacity mag for ANY semi-auto.
Why is INTENT looked at in nearly every part of the law EXCEPT for guns?
You know the obvious answer to that question: an armed and moral people cannot be easily subjugated and/or eliminated/exterminated if they are armed as we currently are.
This is why “intent” does not apply to keeping and bearing firearms.
Assault weapons are machine guns and already heavily regulated by the BATF.
AR-15s are semi-automatic rifles.
You will not ban them. You will not confiscate them. We will never turn them in.
There are more than 4 million ARs in America at this time and people are buying more every day.
Americans know what your intentions are. We are preparing for war.
There are 500,000 of you and over 300 million guns and 100 million citizens ready to answer the call.
It's your call. .
I always refer to them as defense weapons even when the other person continues with the 'assault' misnomer. I leave it up to them to try to correct me, giving the opportunity of educating an uninformed person.
Choose wisely. The Republic depends on it.
Choose wisely ,
Yes.
AR,
that’s what pirates say,no?
As an end user you can’t legally purchase a fully automatic weapon made after 1986, but other than that it’s not much more than a typical background check, a 200 dollar special tax, and a 12 month wait. The biggest problem is that even a transferable FA registered AR receiver is going to cost you big bucks (15k-30k due to FOPA). A class III license is for dealers, there is no license or permit that allows and end user to buy full auto weapons. FOPA was a nightmare as many jurisdictions completely ignore it and the federal government never prosecutes. It needs to be repealed or changed along with the NFA and ‘68 gun control act and ‘93 NICS check.
In heller and mcdonald, the supreme court established and clarified two different categories of arms, one of which received full protection of the 2A, the other does not.
They established what they called “weapons of common defense” and “weapons of uncommon defense” (also known as offensive weapons).
They built this classification system so that they could limit the 2A in a way as to give it some commonsense, so that people aren’t out buying nuclear weapons, explosives, howitzers, etc...makes sense. It was also an effort to ensure that their ruling didn’t strike down the automatic weapons ban.
But they were VERY clear (particularly in Mcdonald when they deliberately talked about why handguns are common defense) that semi automatic firearms are not “dangerous and unusual.”
So to meet the definition of a weapon of common defense it really has to meet the following criteria, 1) does it provide discrimination of effect/targeting? 2) is it widely available, and widely used and accepted?
The answer for the AR15 is yes, on both regards. Semi automatics are distinctly different from fully automatics because they allow for discrimination of effects. Thus they are inherently LESS dangerous than their full auto cousins... In military lexicon, automatic weapons are for area targets, where as shooting in semi auto is for precision targeting (which isn’t necessarily a military function, you need precision targeting for hunting for instance).
Finally, they used police officers as the decider as to whether something was a common weapon. With handguns, the court ruled that these weapons were their predominant weapon of self-defense. They serve no other purpose for the police officers. Thus, knowing that people face the same threat police officers do, it makes sense for them to also carry these weapons. Plus the amount already on the market, means that they are very common.
I believe the court will pick this case up, and I believe they will not make the Obama administration or the radical left very happy.
Interesting phrase “not suitable for militia use” in this case. Because AR15 and AK47 “style” firearms are the weapons of choice for militias worldwide. Under that logic, the CMP should be making them available to the citizenry and we should all become proficient in their use (”well regulated “).
AR-15s an AK-47s aren't fully automatic weapons. They don't require a Class III permit.
Many dealers will help walk you through creating a trust to forgo some of the paperwork. I had a lawyer look into it for me, but it wasn’t worth the money to me. If you’ve got liquid income burning a hole in your pocket, it’s not that expensive.
Class III tax stamp is chump change. Buying the weapon will set you back a bunch.
"They built this classification system so that they could limit the 2A in a way as to give it some commonsense, so that people aren’t out buying nuclear weapons, explosives, howitzers, etc...makes sense".
And yet clearly the 2nd amendment says "Shall not be infringed". Bringing nuclear weapons, biological warfare, or chemical weapons into the conversation on the 2nd amendment is an intentional blurring of the issue as the means of purchasing, and safely storing said are beyond the means of even the average wealthy. (plus all have been privately owned at one point or another)
Of course they’re “not suitable for militia use”. They’re not full-auto. Heck, even the CMP doesn’t make them available to the citizenry because they’re not suitable.
And reconciling such a ruling with that reasoning vs 922(o) (ban on post-1986 machineguns) will take another 5-15 years, at which point the question may be moot (given a Con Con duly hijacked and the Bill Of Rights revoked outright in favor of “positive rights”).
The C3 tax stamp wasn’t chump change when enacted, it amounted to some 80x the price of a typical applicable weapon. The “chump change” occurred because (A) inflation decreased the value of the tax to 1/20th, and (B) the overlap of 922(o) nearly eliminated the supply, making prices skyrocket and render the items far more valuable as investments than as weapons.
Machineguns aside, most Class III weapons aren’t particularly expensive.
Expect Congress to hike the Class III tax from $200 to 10-100x that ... and for semiautomatics be added to NFA coverage.
IIRC, the NRA advocates keeping this type of case out of SCOTUS. Circuit Courts invariably uphold bans that are not total/absolute, and I would expect SCOTUS to, as well. In the past, when Circuit Courts upheld a partial ban, and SCOTUS was petitioned to hear the case, SCOTUS denied cert.
The term of art used in Heller, to find some gun bans constitutional, is "in common use at the time." This was used to avoid finding the 1934 NFA and later unconstitutional laws to be constitutional, and amounts to a subversive reconstruction of the Miller case.
The phrase "common defense" was used by the Heller court to hold that the RKBA attaches to individuals, and not only to individuals who are members of state-controlled military-units (commonly and incorrectly thought to be synonymous with "well-regulated militias").
The words "uncommon" and "offensive" do not appear in the opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.