Posted on 02/19/2021 7:43:59 AM PST by Onthebrink
Yes it is a weapon of war. It’s a weapon of war that has mandated modifications through unconstitutional law. The second amendment guarantees the people have the unrestricted right to posses weapons of war. In fact that is the entire point of the second amendment. What is not allowed by our constitution are laws that restrict our possession of weapons of war in any way. We need to stop apologizing for or rights and start demanding they be recognized and exercised to their fullest extent.
Without command, logistics, Intel, communication, air cover, medical care and fighting doctrine, every American arms carrier is on his own.
Many who want to see such firearms banned try to use terms that, while sound scary, don’t really apply to the AR-15.
Under the Clinton/Biden Crime Law of 1994, an AR-15 was a semi-automatic assault weapon whose manufacture was banned. Biden appears to want to bring back the ban.
Statement by the President Three Years After the Parkland Shooting
February 14, 2021 - Statements and Releases
[excerpt]
This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.
Constitutional challenges to the 1994 law failed in court. That law was never struck down, but by a sunset provision, it expired in 2004. Attempts to renew it failed. A reinstatement could now be challenged under Heller/McDonald.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (The Clinton/Biden Crime law, 356 pp pdf)
At pg 201 "SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS."
At 201:
(a) RESTRICTION.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:‘‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer,
or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
At 202:
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON.—Section
921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means—
‘‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the
firearms in any caliber, known as—
‘‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat
Kalashnikovs (all models);
‘‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and
Galil;
‘‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70);
‘‘(iv) Colt AR–15;
‘‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
‘‘(vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9, and M–12;
‘‘(vii) Steyr AUG;
‘‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22; and
‘‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar
to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
‘‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept
a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—
‘‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
‘‘(iii) a bayonet mount;
‘‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed
to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
‘‘(v) a grenade launcher;
‘‘(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept
a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—
‘‘(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol
outside of the pistol grip;
‘‘(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel
extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
‘‘(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter
to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being
burned;
‘‘(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when
the pistol is unloaded; and
‘‘(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;
and
‘‘(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of—
‘‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
‘‘(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds;
and
‘‘(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.’’.
Congressional Research Service Report R42957
Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues
Vivian S. Chu Legislative Attorney
February 14, 2013
At 7:
Legal Challenges to the 1994 Assault Weapons BanThe Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions. While arguments that the act constituted an impermissible Bill of Attainder,42 is unconstitutionally vague,43 and is contrary to the Ninth Amendment44 were readily dismissed by the courts, challenges to the ban based on the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause received more measured consideration.
At 11, in re a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban:
Second Amendment ConsiderationIf enacted, an assault weapons ban could also be challenged on Second Amendment grounds in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.78 The decision was not an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment,79 but the Court stated that “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”80 One limitation upon the Second Amendment the Court addressed is that it “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as shortbarreled shotguns.”81 The Court found that its prior 1939 decision in United States v. Miller82 supported this conclusion. Relying on Miller, the Court acknowledged that this limitation is supported by the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” and that the “sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’” because those capable of service in the militia at the time of ratification would have brought “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.”83
As the assault weapons ban has not yet been resinstated, that potential Second Amendment challenge under Heller (and McDonald) has not yet been tested. Technically, Heller only applied to D.C., but McDonald extended its coverage to the states.
Its name is carried forward in the substance ethyl alcohol; that is, ethanol. This is the ethanol that we now consume in its distillery concentrated form in brandy, whiskey, vodka, gin, etc. which likely have 40 t0 70 percent of it, and which nearly all are flammable (as well as poisonous).
“What color is it and does it have a pistol grip.”
The original AR-7’s have some modifications available...
This AR-7 was produced by Henry Repeating Arms so, no pistol grip and I did not upgrade to any color other than black.
It’s in a custom waterproof case with 6 clips and storage for 100 additional rounds.
Oh, it also has a quick dismount scope.
Really, really dialed in.
Thanks for asking.
Ironically enough, under the logic of United States v. Miller, the case relied on by Stevens and the rest of the anti-gun judges and lawyers, the Second Amendment protects only the right to possess "weapons of war." The Supreme Court in that case reasoned that the right to possess a short-barreled shotgun was not protected by the Second Amendment because it was "not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Reliance on Miller made a lot of sense for anti-gunners back when their focus was on banning handguns rather than rifles. They were too intellectually lazy to update their legal reasoning when they changed their goals.
Even following the interpretation of the Second Amendment under Miller, without Heller or McDonald, if the Second Amendment protects the right to own anything, it protects the right to own an M4A1 with the Rock-n-Roll switch intact, because that is "ordinary military equipment" today.
Eh, that’d be at a minimum, battery, and much worse.
After all, isn’t a modern bolt-action deer rifle just the civilian version of a Kar98k? “No one needs a Nazi-gun to hunt deer!”
Rational arguments and semantics aren’t going to work against these people.
I am a 3 war combat Infantry/armor vet (Vietnam, Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom) I know this rifle’s capabilities well. We need to be honest about the fact that when the selector lever is placed in the semi-auto position, a good quality AR-15 using the 5.56 NATO cartridge is (and due to the NFA required minimum barrel length of 16”), slightly more effective and accurate than the 14.5” barrel of the M-4 carbine series, given identical barrel twist rates of 1:7. Also many “civilian”) AR-15’s are chambered in a wide variety of what may be considered more lethal cartridge chamberings than the standard GI 5.56 M885 or M193 NATO round.
Full auto fire from a shoulder fired assault rifle is generally not as effective as semi-auto, due to accuracy, ammo expenditure, and overheating wear considerations. It is useful mainly for fire suppression, gaining initial fire superiority for maneuver elements, and in the final stages of assault. All the damn gun grabbing hype and idiotic movies wildly over state full auto effectiveness from an individual shoulder fired small arm. Full auto fire is far for effective for purpose designed belt fed support automatic weapons, like GPMG’s and SAWS.
The very similarity of the civvy AR-15 to its military brethren is EXACTLY why we should own it to enable our duty as members of the well regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state in the 2nd amendment. If the rifle is Mil spec, then most of the parts are interchangeable with the GI version, save for the Fire control group and the machining of the lower receiver, which assures part availability and ammunition commonality.
We must not let the malicious branding of the AR as a “weapon of war” cause us to minimize or distort the actual military value of an AR-15 to a citizen militia since a militia has been defined by the SCOTUS as a body of citizens organized for MILITARY purposes!!! (Presser vs Illinois) Amendment #2 aint about shooting bunny rabbits.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Hughes amendment of 1986 has made genuine M-16 and M-4 variants difficult or impossible to own legally. I say let us OPENLY insist on the closest thing commonly available to us civilians for our militia role. Besides it is a damn fine rifle for ANY legal purpose!!!!
For example, I live in the Soviet State of Washington out by the Pacific Ocean. By an initiative a statewide law was created that defined ANY semiautomatic rifle as an assault weapon. I kid you not. That Ruger 10/22, it is an assault rifle. The nylon stock Remington 22 LR you had as a boy, that is now a deadly assault rifle and requires to you get training, special licensing, and safe storage to buy. It does not matter if it has a tubular magazine, or the caliber.
So BY DEFINITION in Washington State (Soviet) since an AR-15 clone is a semiautomatic rifle, it is an assault rifle.
Things are becoming quite Orwellian. Words are being given special defined meanings all the time by politicians. There are violent right wing conservative riots/insurrections and mostly peaceful BLM/ANTIFA protests.
Waaaaaait just a minute. Based on all their other propaganda, weapons of color should be assumed to be of unassailable virtue! It’s those cracker white guns you have to watch!
My main point is that the AR-15 in it’s “civilian” variants, is among the most appropriate now available to the citizenry to serve as the modern day equivalent of the Brown Bess musket, or the Pennsylvania Rifle of the Revolutionary War. It is every bit as effective as a “weapon of war” as is an M4/M4A1 used in semi-auto mode, and we should not shy away from telling the truth of that. I believe that civilians should be allowed select fire weapons as well, as these are the sort “in common military use at the time.” (SCOTUS, Presser vs Illinois)
Besides, pressing a lightweight selective fire weapon that lacks a quick change barrel for sustained fire purposes is asking to either break it or wear it out unnecessarily, although I know that they are frequently impressed to perform that duty.
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.