Government Admits AR-15s Are Not Weapons of WarGovernment Admits AR-15s Are Not Weapo

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    Government Admits AR-15s Are Not Weapons of War 23 Jul 2018

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/..._Qewu1V6GXi-3HytMTGFa4At7Cl_9ZxwOjHnBbAXWWnSE



    The amended regulations proposed in the settlement show the government will no longer look at semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber as “military equipment” or weapons of war.
    In offering a definition of “military equipment” the settlement says:
    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.
    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.”
    Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb spoke to Breitbart News about the settlement, saying:
    Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby. For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called “weapons of war,” and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort.
    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.
    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.”
     

    clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    Funny part is the AR15's were full auto. Early government issued models we're Colt and Armalite marked AR15's which had a 3 position selector.

    People assume it's not a machinegun unless it's called a M16 or M4.
     

    jrh0341

    Member
    Jul 20, 2017
    58
    It's laughable when people try to propose that a civilian available AR is "military hardware".

    Anytime someone tries to tell you that they're the same, ask them this:

    The AR-15 you can buy in a civilian store, doesn't fire on auto right? But you claim it's "military hardware" right? Ok, so walk up to any military member, try to issue them a civilian AR, and tell them at issue "there is no auto". Do they accept and sign for it? Or do they say, "**** no I'm not signing for this broken ass shit. Get me a real one that works"?
     

    jrumann59

    DILLIGAF
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 17, 2011
    14,024
    It's laughable when people try to propose that a civilian available AR is "military hardware".

    Anytime someone tries to tell you that they're the same, ask them this:

    The AR-15 you can buy in a civilian store, doesn't fire on auto right? But you claim it's "military hardware" right? Ok, so walk up to any military member, try to issue them a civilian AR, and tell them at issue "there is no auto". Do they accept and sign for it? Or do they say, "**** no I'm not signing for this broken ass shit. Get me a real one that works"?


    Most infantrymen are trained not to fire on full auto, most will use burst or semi. FA is used mostly for suppressing fire and there are guns that are better equipped to do that. When I was in the Army most drills I used semi-auto 90% of the time.
     

    sajidakh

    Active Member
    Dec 28, 2010
    981
    But what really does this do? Nothing is codified into any sort of law. The next administration can literally change it to say we changed our mind...they are weapons of war. And is this really a win? If anything its designating that as long as a weapon is NOT determined to be a weapon of war than civilians can own it. Otherwise regulations can be made and enforced. The whole point of the 2A is to be on equal footing.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    But what really does this do? Nothing is codified into any sort of law. The next administration can literally change it to say we changed our mind...they are weapons of war. And is this really a win? If anything its designating that as long as a weapon is NOT determined to be a weapon of war than civilians can own it. Otherwise regulations can be made and enforced. The whole point of the 2A is to be on equal footing.

    What you say is true, but I think we should look at this as a gift, and be sure to bring it up, again and again, whenever the anti-2A crowd cranks up their rhetoric.

    It doesn't matter if it gets changed, down the road. It's on record, and is a lot more factual than most of the lying garbage they spew at us.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,191
    Davidsonville
    This reminds me, is the bumpstock legal or illegal this week?

    Since production began, its definition has too changed on occasion, and soon the previous admins definition gets Trumped?
     

    THier

    R.I.P.
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 3, 2010
    4,998
    Muscleville
    Government Admits AR-15s Are Not Weapons of War 23 Jul 2018

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/..._Qewu1V6GXi-3HytMTGFa4At7Cl_9ZxwOjHnBbAXWWnSE



    The amended regulations proposed in the settlement show the government will no longer look at semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber as “military equipment” or weapons of war.
    In offering a definition of “military equipment” the settlement says:
    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.
    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.”
    Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb spoke to Breitbart News about the settlement, saying:
    Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby. For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called “weapons of war,” and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort.
    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.
    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.”

    And Maryland lawmakers stand in the corner with their hands over their ears screaming "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" over and over.
     

    clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    It's laughable when people try to propose that a civilian available AR is "military hardware".

    Anytime someone tries to tell you that they're the same, ask them this:

    The AR-15 you can buy in a civilian store, doesn't fire on auto right? But you claim it's "military hardware" right? Ok, so walk up to any military member, try to issue them a civilian AR, and tell them at issue "there is no auto". Do they accept and sign for it? Or do they say, "**** no I'm not signing for this broken ass shit. Get me a real one that works"?

    Those people are more right than you may want to admit.

    The AR15 was designed as a machinegun. The government models we're too until they renamed it to the M16.
     

    Attachments

    • Screenshot_20190212-173305~2.jpg
      Screenshot_20190212-173305~2.jpg
      55 KB · Views: 540

    Malleovic

    Active Member
    Apr 21, 2017
    193
    Maryland
    Interesting that the selector position is auto where the safe is now on the receivers.


    Q

    This was the original design. I think they realized at some point that someone crawling forward and dragging the rifle against the ground would easily flip it from SAFE to AUTO without knowing...

    Which is bad.

    EDIT: I shouldn't say "dragging". More like holding in the most natural position in your right hand (on the HG, with the left side of the receiver against the ground).
     
    Last edited:

    CBo

    Member
    Feb 11, 2018
    50
    Columbia
    I mean, the definition of an automatic firearm is clearly stated, yet it doesnt stop those in favor of preventing gun ownership to claim bumpstocks change a gun to a machine gun.. these people do not care about facts, just feelings. whatever they feel the law is or should be.
     

    chuck

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 1, 2016
    1,522
    Anne Arundel
    Well according to the Supreme Court in Miller, only military weapons are protected under the Second Amendment. So now banning AR-15's is legitimate if you follow that reasoning.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    MSI should really look at going for new judgement..

    Kolbe v. Hogan, Jr., No. 14-1945 (4th Cir. 2017)
    Annotate this Case


    Justia Opinion Summary
    Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Maryland's Firearm Safety Act (FSA), Md. Code, Crim. Law 4-303(a). The district court awarded judgment to defendants, concluding that the FSA is constitutional. A divided three-judge panel of this court then remanded, directing that the district court apply the more restrictive standard of strict scrutiny to the FSA. The panel's decision was vacated in its entirety by the court's grant of rehearing en banc in this case. The court concluded that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that it had no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the District of Columbia v. Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage. Nevertheless, the court also found it prudent to rule that — even if the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are somehow entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny and correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of review. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

    So In Fact a bad judgement.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    I don't think that is correct Chuck. At least I hope so.
    V

    the Court opened the door to an individual reading of the amendment even further by holding that a sawed-off shotgun was unprotected because it had no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
    ..


    US v Miller ruling suggested that all "free men" could possess weapons of the type used for militia service.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,923
    Messages
    7,259,159
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom