Re: Kolbe v O'Malley... AR/AK "Common Use"

Tyeraxus said:

This. I would very much like an AR-15 but haven't bought one yet. Once I have one, it will feature in my HD plan.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, I would say vote according to what you are thinking of doing... as that's part of your "plan"

Don't have an AK, but I do have a Sig 556R which shoots same round and uses same mags so I voted both.

Option 6: I have no illusions about being able to wake up in the middle of the night from a deep sleep, getting to a rifle and shooting a wide awake, fully alert intruder.

Not opposed to the concept of using AR/ AK for HD, just satisfied at present with current mix of handguns and shotguns.

mxrider said:

While I understand where you are going with this, I think it's a fairly useless poll on our forums. We have an adverse selection group here when asking this question.

Click to expand...

You guys need to choose your EMs more carefully, so that they have the wit to even comprehend what you're saying.

Mr H said:

Understood, but I disagree. Who better than gun owners, to say why they own them?

Click to expand...

Because the issue is common use, not "common use amongst gun owners who happen to frequent a particular internet forum". Why don't you go post this up on ARFCOM and see what the results look like?

Considering I don't go over there (arfcom), it's not really a point. And asking the question in calguns, or pafoa, or ilcarry is pointless as well.

It's a Maryland question, to [primarily] Maryland owners, regarding a decision about Maryland law.

BTW... this was posed by me personally, not MSI. And last I checked, neither mxrider nor I am lacking wit.

smokey0118 said:

View attachment 126780

Click to expand...

smokey, what is the benefit (to you/your wife) of the angled fore grip over a vertical fore grip?

I have a M1A that would be used for HD if the situation demands it.

What they needed to address is the BS Proviso that an Colt HBAR or clone is acceptable but not a M4 clone. You can legally buy a standard capacity magazine out of state and possess it in Md but just not buying it in Md some how makes us safer.

I picked, I own both, but they are not in my immediate "oh sheet, someone's breaking down the door" plan of action but they exist in my possession for events of civil strife and unrest (see Ferguson, MO). I pray I never have to employee the direct use of force against someone, but to say that they are not employed by myself for the purpose of self-defense and defense of self/family/friends/loved ones is completely asinine to me.

Personal details notwithstanding, I have contemplated implementing these types of arms in a direct response plan to the home invasion scenario, but I have decided against it at this time. To me...this is a personal choice and should have absolutely no bearing upon why I own the types of arms being litigated. The exist, I own them, and if need be, I would use them. Period.

"Intruder in the house" isn't the only situation we should consider, IMO. Also think about your immediate surroundings re: ANY Home Defense circumstance.

Mr H said:

Considering I don't go over there (arfcom), it's not really a point. And asking the question in calguns, or pafoa, or ilcarry is pointless as well.

It's a Maryland question, to [primarily] Maryland owners, regarding a decision about Maryland law.

BTW... this was posed by me personally, not MSI. And last I checked, neither mxrider nor I am lacking wit.

Click to expand...

You MSI guys sure do take a heap of crap for your posts here. Unbelievable.

Your one of the easiest people on the board to get along with too.

clandestine said:

You MSI guys sure do take a heap of crap for your posts here. Unbelievable.

Your one of the easiest people on the board to get along with too.

Click to expand...

Yeah, well... comes with the territory.

And thanks.

My AR15 is accessible for HD and preferable to my handguns since I'm in a townhouse. I don't want 9mm slugs going into a neighbor's room. As much as I practice with the handguns, I can guarantee I'm more accurate with the AR and hopefully the mere sight of an AR15 pointed at an intruder would stop them in their tracks until the authorities can arrive.

Two ARs are beside my bed right now, the AK comes out as well if there's reason to expect a slower than normal 911 response (mostly for hurricanes, bad weather, etc.).

while not in my typical home invasion HD plan, (i have buckshot and slugs for that) I do have rifles for more of a red dawn HD plan...so I guess that counts.

Mr H said:

"Intruder in the house" isn't the only situation we should consider, IMO. Also think about your immediate surroundings re: ANY Home Defense circumstance.

Click to expand...

Exactly my thought. A home invasion is one of many scenarios where you would have to defend your home.

I own both but voted not for HD, only because I feel I would be more effective with shotguns/handguns. That's a personal preference, not a assessment of how effective a rifle would be for that purpose.

In a riot situation however, I would switch to an AR/AK for sure as it changes the situation from inside the home at short distances to outside the home with different implications.

I do own AK/ARs for "common use" purposes... target shooting is where almost all my trigger time is spent, and I use rifles almost exclusively for that. If I was a hunter, this would also be a "common use" for them. IMO the big issue with Heller is that it focused solely on self-defense, which is only one facet of why most of us own firearms. Discussing constitutionality in terms of HD is painting ourselves into a corner.

It's clear from your poll results that even if we're not 100% in unison on owning ARs/AKs for HD that they are indeed commonly owned for that purpose, and the judge was wrong even within this limited interpretation of the scope of what 2A protects.

Poll shouldn't be limited to MD only

It's a Maryland question, to [primarily] Maryland owners, regarding a decision about Maryland law.

I think you want to also ask those living in Free America. These are obviously going to be in less common use in MD than in, for example, North Dakota or Montana. Mainly because your laws over the last 20 years have slowed the flow of plastic rifles into your homes, but also due to the urban/suburban makeup of the eastern two-thirds of the state. Just because the AR platform might not be the first choice for a 6-2 body builder living in a Baltimore rowhouse doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good choice for a 5-4, 140 pound woman living in the sticks outside of Accident. As mentioned above, we shouldn't be thinking "Home Invasion" when a mus-guided judge seems to think that the second amendment is solely for "home defense". The lady in Accident may need to protect kids in an outbuilding, stock or property in the yard, or other items/persons on her property. The poll should also include common usage in Free America, where people have been allowed to choose the best platform for their own needs.

In my own case, my 16 year old son sneers at the AR, and thinks the world begins and ends with .308 now that he's outgrown his .243 for hunting. My wife is recoil shy and my younger daughter doesn't have the arm length to deal with the LOP on our hunting rifles. An AR (with a collapsible stock in the daughter's case) is the preferred vermin dispatcher when the men-folk aren't around. When my wife was more fit and before my daughter was of age to shoot, we had no use for an AR in our defense plan, but things change.


BTW, what is "MSI"?

Judge Blake: The plaintiffs could not "produce a single example in which an assault weapon or more than 10 rounds of ammunition were “used or useful” in an instance of self-defense in Maryland".
Me: Setting aside the sheer incredible ignorance of that statement, I think if you ask just about any rank and file police officer that patrols Maryland streets (especially, those within the city of Baltimore!) how they feel about the judge's comments with respect to the long gun most of them carry in their patrol cars (because it's the best gun "in common usage....for the lawful defense of self or of others" --DC vs Heller), they'd mightily disagree. (I have asked a number of them and they do!) Or is the "judge" trying to insinuate that all cops use their AR-15s solely to spray classrooms full of innocent children?

============

Judge Blake: "The court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes"
Me: So, she's saying that the 15-20+ million Americans who own "assault weapons" are all using them for UNlawful purposes. Seriously? Seriously?? And she's basing this on what? The word of the defendants? Something she recalls reading once on Huffington? A feeling?
Naivete's one thing, but this woman's not only exceeded the bounds of sanity but ventured firmly into hate speech, which IS illegal.

And, again, I think most active police officers would beg to differ with the judge's agenda. Like our president, this stupid woman clearly has no grasp of the framers' constitutional intents or her responsibility to interpret case law. Oh, wait. I keep forgetting she's a liberal activist "judge", which means that law is to be interpreted according to one's judicial point of view, political fashion du jour and/or feelings.

Looks like another unconstitutional, gun-confiscator needs her head (and decision) handed back to her by the Supreme Court. And, frankly, based on the increasing number of decisions like this one, the true purpose of the Second Amendment (fyi: it's not to protect oneself from criminals....at least not the civilan kind!) is becoming all the more clear (and relevant).

HankR said:

It's a Maryland question, to [primarily] Maryland owners, regarding a decision about Maryland law.

I think you want to also ask those living in Free America. These are obviously going to be in less common use in MD than in, for example, North Dakota or Montana. Mainly because your laws over the last 20 years have slowed the flow of plastic rifles into your homes, but also due to the urban/suburban makeup of the eastern two-thirds of the state. Just because the AR platform might not be the first choice for a 6-2 body builder living in a Baltimore rowhouse doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good choice for a 5-4, 140 pound woman living in the sticks outside of Accident. As mentioned above, we shouldn't be thinking "Home Invasion" when a mus-guided judge seems to think that the second amendment is solely for "home defense". The lady in Accident may need to protect kids in an outbuilding, stock or property in the yard, or other items/persons on her property. The poll should also include common usage in Free America, where people have been allowed to choose the best platform for their own needs.

In my own case, my 16 year old son sneers at the AR, and thinks the world begins and ends with .308 now that he's outgrown his .243 for hunting. My wife is recoil shy and my younger daughter doesn't have the arm length to deal with the LOP on our hunting rifles. An AR (with a collapsible stock in the daughter's case) is the preferred vermin dispatcher when the men-folk aren't around. When my wife was more fit and before my daughter was of age to shoot, we had no use for an AR in our defense plan, but things change.


BTW, what is "MSI"?

Click to expand...

MSI = Maryland Shall Issue https://marylandshallissue.com/ the citizens defense league of Maryland. They are the premier state's rights advocacy group.