Court Rules Second Amendment Doesn’t Protect AR-15, Assault Rifles and Large-Capacity Magazines
A federal court ruled on Friday that AR-15 rifles, the high-powered rifle used in the Parkland mass shooting, as well as similar military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines are not protected under the Second Amendment.
"AR-15s and [large capacity magazines] are most useful in military service, they are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment [...] and may be banned," wrote Massachusetts District Court Judge William Young. The case was first brought in January 2017 by several gun owners, the nonprofit group Gun Owners' Action League, and gun stores On Target Training and Overwatch Outpost.( cont'd )
Ooooops!
A federal court ruled on Friday that AR-15 rifles, the high-powered rifle used in the Parkland mass shooting, as well as similar military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines are not protected under the Second Amendment.
The article was titled as if to imply the Supreme Court made this ruling, which was not the case. The ruling will be challenged and debated in a higher court
Ruling by the Supreme Court already says that types of weapons can be regulated.
"AR-15s and [large capacity magazines] are most useful in military service, they are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment [...] and may be banned," wrote Massachusetts District Court Judge William Young. The case was first brought in January 2017 by several gun owners, the nonprofit group Gun Owners' Action League, and gun stores On Target Training and Overwatch Outpost.
This judge just proved he has no idea about the differences between an AR-15 and an M-4 and went right along with the other ignorant fools that don't know the differences.
And they actually think law biding citizens will just roll over and allow their rights to be taken away.
Deleted - Skirting CoC {SP}
removed for context {SP}
What do you law abiding citizens plan on doing if they did?
Keeping my firearms.
The speaker at 4:36 has put it perfectly:
There is a reality to both aspects of that statement. You can't do either.
You can however target specific weapons that really have no practical reason for existence outside of the military and you can corral illegal immigrants who are actually committing real crimes. You'll never be 100% on either of course, but that doesn't mean you just sit around watching as things devolve.
I can't help but wonder why so many here are pounding the table about this. The SCOTUS refused to hear an Appeal of the Maryland assault weapons ban WAY back in Nov. 2017. Of course the NRA will take every state's ban to court but it's pretty clear at this point that these bans are Constitutional. Maybe the NRA should talk to the 'Liberty Counsel' about the uselessness of beating a dead horse.
It's not 2017 any more. By the time this one works its way up to that level, we'll have at least one, and probably two more Conservative justices.
It only took 9 months for the Maryland ruling.
Oh and BTFW, the Senate has it's hands full right not with all of the RE-confirmations they have to work through so the SCOTUS may just have to run short staffed for a while...
You're correct. And being that an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle, this whole thing is about nothing.
I don't think so. Pretty sure that a Supreme Court nominee will go to the head of the line. No stalling on this one or some Senators could see a lot of Federal projects going to other States, or maybe some bases closing in their States.
I know. Despite your fallacious assessment of my participation on this site, I OFTEN AM.
Except for the FACT that the AR-15 and a plethora of other 'assault rifles' ARE banned in multiple states and that number continues to grow. You can 'whistle past the graveyard' if you wish...
Think what you want. Right now, Trump and the Senate have a crap load on their plates. The Democrats won't 'expedite' a SCOTUS nominee and will undoubtedly nail a weak choice to the wall. Remember Harriet Miers?
Right. And Laughable. The Senate can pick any order to do confirmations they want. A SCOTUS jusdge would likely be a pretty easy bet for moving to the head of the list.
Though the Democrats could make the same claim that the GOP did with Merrick Garland.
Isn't it great !
Depending on who is in office, THEY decide what "Arms one is allowed to LEGALLY Bear" !
Ain't it a hoot that what one is allowed to own, depends on which way the wind blows that 4 or so years ?
The founding Fathers didn't seem to give a shit ! I liked the founding fathers.
Well, not quite every four years. At least, not if the right people get appointed to the Supreme Court, then the decision can last for up to 40 years.
The left thinks we are stupid and will willingly surrender our firearms and our liberties
Alexander Hamilton Federalist 28
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." -- Hubert H. Humphrey Liberal Democratic Senator, 22 October 1959
and on this I agree with you
Not at all, conservatives simply prove that fact daily by ignoring sense, logic, reason and reality. They prefer to put their version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster above the constitution and believe they need a military arsenal to defend their imaginary deity. You would think an all powerful, all knowing God would be able to defend itself.
Our right to keep weapons has nothing to do with our love of God. It is based upon defense of liberty against criminals and government. We have at least 5 times the size of the military in armed veterans and other liberty loving individuals to remind the government that we, not they are the masters of our lives.
James Madison
"T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 46"
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
Why bring God into this?
No shit, he's not even a fucking citizen.
I don't, the conservatives who keep trying to inject their religion into every facet of secular America do. And then they bitch and moan about not being able to own military style assault weapons designed for mass casualties because they imagine themselves and their religion under some kind of existential threat because sane Americans believe in actual freedom of religion which allows any American to follow whatever faith they choose or none. If saying "Happy Holidays" is an attack on Christians I hate to think what they'll do if we got them to remove their blue laws, their religious indoctrination in our public schools and their religious monuments from public spaces like court houses. I have no doubt the religious bigots would try and rise up against a supposedly "unjust" government for simply asking them to keep their religion at home, in their hearts and in their churches.
Which military assault weapons would that be? I know of no one that has done that.
I see you left out a word that makes all the difference. An AR-15 is a "military style assault rifle". Nuts, criminals and crazies gravitate to them because they look like they're military weapons and with the large capacity clips they are designed for maximum carnage for a semi-automatic weapon. It's why they have been used in nearly every mass shooting in recent memory.
Ohhh you're gonna fry for that one.
Your memory needs some work. Might want to actually look at the list of mass shootings and count again.
You do realize, don't you that you just stated an oxymoron? Politicians and criminals are pretty much the same thing. Actually, on a moral level, politicians are about two steps below criminals.
" in all of the latest incidents — Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012; San Bernardino, California, in 2015; Orlando, Florida, in 2016; Las Vegas in 2017; and Sutherland Springs, Texas, 2017 , Parkland, Florida 2018 — the attackers primarily used AR-15s."
No it is not a military style assualt weapon. That is your description as your masters on the left have pounded into your head. The AR-15 has never been a military weapon. Period. That's like calling a bowie knife an assault knife.
There is something else nearly EVERY mass shooting have in common but no one ever talks about it and no one is doing anything about it.
yeah, they happen in predominantly designated gun free zones.....
gun free zones equal target rich environments for those that are set on creating mayhem.
And liberals cried, whined and stomped their feet for "more legislation" that will just get ignored just like existing legislation.
Your selective outrage is a glaring example of somebody throwing a hissy fit about the AR-15 (a .22 caliber rifle) and ignoring far more people are killed by hand guns (far more powerful than a .22 caliber) in this country. But don't let that FACT slow your tantrum.
C'mon now, they have to strike while the iron is still hot or should i say, before the bodies cool down completely.
Their mantra:
Never let a good crisis go to waste
We have allowed our national military to become much larger and more permanent than was ever intended, while simultaneously abdicating our right and responsibility to remain free and armed citizens.
Federalist Paper #46 [type bolding added for emphasis]:
Hey, good for the writers and editors of the "Federalist." Bad news is I'm afraid to trust about 20% of the people that have arms already (especially the ones who get rabid in their defense of firearms) and I might not be alone with that thought.
They were also the writers of the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.
That's fine. I feel the same way. But I don't think the answer is to take away everyone's guns so we can just be subjects of the crown all over again. I think we need to find a way to come together as a community to make gun owners more responsible and keep guns away from the lunatics.
That's all right, we don't trust government either, or those who want government to exist without being TIGHTLY RESTRAINED.
No, I don't think The "Federalist" is old enough to have written the Constitution and those men that did write the Constitution don't write for the "federalist" either.
I was thinking of a wait-a-minute rule, where some aps get another, more serous look.
I don't trust the current government either, but I think I don't trust the people who own 50 or 60 weapons more.
You can thank, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam and, the Cold War for that. Without a standing military capable of taking on the Russians during the Cold War we would be speaking Russian today.
WWI through Vietnam. Know what they all had in common? It was draft based. We no longer have that. We didn't have much of a standing Army.
Actually had Hitler not been such a dumb-ass it never would have gotten that far. The Axis would have won and we would be speaking German or Japanese not Russian.
There never would have been a Soviet Union.
If Hitler had taken Great Britain before or instead of going after Russia then he could have hopped from Iceland to Greenland and then to the East coast of the USA. Turning on Russia before taking GB was raw ignorance. It was his raw stupidity of trying to fight a three front war (including Africa) that is why he never reached America.
Yep we were a couple of enemy blunders away from losing WW-2 in both Theaters but i suppose that sort of thing is too "alarming" to teach in history classes anymore.
What everyone is forgetting is that if the colonists were forced to only use the Arquebus instead of muskets and rifles, we would not have a country right now. The Arquebus is the equivalent to modern day revolvers and would have been useless in any sort of clash with the British military with their muskets and rifles. If those using the Arquebus would get close to the British military, they might be able to do some damage; but most likely would have been slaughtered after the first salvo due to the heavy inaccuracy of the weapon and the higher accuracy of the musket along with the quicker reloading time of said musket. The entire reason for the Second Amendment was to keep the people armed with the same weapons as the military; because if the government became oppressive, the people would have to overthrow it. Without the proper weapons to keep the people on par with the military, there is almost no hope of throwing off the yoke of an oppressive government.
So a few domestic guys with AR-15s are going to take on the world's most powerful military?
Nope, since the AR-15 is not a military weapon.
I got a Ruger 10/22 in my safe, it has a 30 round magazine and a scope, I'd put it up against any AR-15 any day.
I also own a 10/22 but would prefer my AR-15 in a fight. 3020 fps. can be devastating.
That velocity sounds like 5.56 NATO ballistics , not .223 REM ballistics, Though both have similar cases there is a slight difference one wouldn't notice, and one will chamber in a rifle meant for the other , but only one can fire them both safely.
reason is the difference in chamber pressures and the chambers are heat treated differently to make up for the difference in chamber pressures.
that is one of the reasons I only shoot handloads in mine , I control all aspects that make it all work. from bullet weight , to amount and type of gunpowder .
I don't want to become a victim of "Operation Green Dot", For those that haven't heard about that , the US got their hands on some insurgent ammo , took it apart , dumped the powder it had , and replaced it with a different type of powder , in this case green dot shotgun powder. and planted it on the battle field for insurgents to pick up and use . 30 round mags might have 2 or 3 somewhere down around the 7-8th round. Once that round was fired , because the powder is a relatively fast burner which means it creates a lot of pressure , fast,usually beyond what the chamber is rated for to withstand the usually result is the bolt group is blown right out the back of the rifle, right into the shooters face. another thing that can happen is the barrel bursts right about where the shooters support hand goes on the fore stock.
You forgot to show the slugs being fired from that rifle...
I've shot that rifle ..... it's not worth a salt .....
Imagine the scope would tear you up, eh?
Not when i'm shooting lower grain rounds .....
Does it shoot rock salt?
No sir - shoots at rocks with salty bullets - definitely not a bump-stocker.
Complete bullshit. AR 15 is not a military rifle, it is a glorified .22, only a complete and soon to be dead moron would use it in military combat.
Is that why it has been the combat weapon of choice for over 50 years for many countries?
I own one and am very happy with its performance.
I've taken several deer out to 400 yards with an AR-15. Hell of an all around ranch rifle!
Name three and make sure that they use ar15s and not M 4s or m 16s.
No , the M-16, the military version is that , the AR-15 is not select fire , like militaries like and use, as is the military versions that the select fire version has spawned in further development .
I can think of no country that uses a semi automatic as their main battlefield weapon of choice, unless they are really really poor.
or XM-177 or CAR-4
M4 and M16 are just modifications/designations of the original AR-15. AR stands for "ArmaLite" the original manufacturer.
Correct , AR stands for Armalite Rifle , and the rifle was designated M when it was adopted AFTER design changes from the origional designed semi was required to have select fire( both semi AND auto capability) like the M-14 that was currently the issue main battle rifle at the time. And it was first adopted by the USAF to replace both the M-1 and M-2 carbines they were currently using . ( m-1 was strictly semi auto, the M-2 was the same gun with select fire capability)
When Armilite sold to colt , colt marketed the AR-15 to civilians as a semi , when the military started placing orders ,Colt used already made , roll stamped lowers that said AR-15, intended for civilian semi autos.
again I say BULLSHIT!!!!! Are you seriously telling me your weapon of choice in a war is a frigging AR 15????? REALLY????? You can't name a single country that uses the AR 15 and NO S-1-3 and fully automatic m4 and m16 DON'T FRIGGING COUNT! M16 even fires a different round. Please don't feed Liberal insanity by confusing them, or lumping them together.
The bottom line is if the AR15 WERE a military weapon, no Military would have ANY REASON to modify it. SIMPLE AS THAT! EXAMPLE:the widely used AK47 is fine the way it is FOR MILITARY COMBAT.
That would be BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE! My point exactly!
A glorified .22 that shoots 62 grain armor piercing slugs at over 3000 ft. per second.
IF you can get them , because currently they are illegal for sale .
BUT, if you cast your own bullets , you can make your own.
I have made some for shotguns slugs, bear medicine in camp.
Been doing business with the Lake City Army ammo plant in Independence Mo. for years now. Don't see that relationship going away any time soon.
Just saw an add for a .22lr reloading kit. Looks like fun especially since I just bought a .22 conversion kit for my AR.
On the right is a 62 grain poodle popper projectile that's basically effectively good out to 400 meters and travels with a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps
On the left 200 grains that's effective range is out to about 800 meters with a muzzle velocity of 2900 fps chronyed in my hand loads. and I can up them to 3600 fps to achieve even more kinetic knock down at range.
and both are nosler ballistic tipped.
The real difference between the 2 , at 400 meters the poodle popper has maybe 200 foot pounds of knock down power left , at 800 meters , the 200 grain still has over1400 foot pounds per square inch of knock down ( kinetic energy that is )
so to make it easyier , the difference is getting hit by a marshmellow , or a baseball .
LOL you mention , I searched and found a couple youtubes , I will agree with one of the guys , its not economical , its time consuming , and it does appear to be a real PITA, and with questionalble results (misfires)
I got a kick out of how he used strike anywhere matches for his priming compound , but he had the same problem I have always seen , no way to take the firing pin mark out of the rim, and in a semi you cant control how that round seats so that it doesn't strike the same place like you can in a revolver .
I have had a 22lr conversion kit for my AR since I built it , and I also got one for my 1911 to make it an ACE. it does save money.
It was my understanding that such weapons, magazines and ammo were always open to restrictions. Didn't even Scalia say so in Heller? The 2nd Amendment has never and was never meant to include all weaponry.
randy , being this is most likely a challenge to a state law and most likely in Mass. itself , it will stand , even on appeal, IF it made it to the USSC on appeal, they would up hold it more than likely , but not for the reasons this judge decided to use.
What's an assault rifle? What's a high capacity magazine? The questions are rhetorical because these are arbitrary standards. In 1860, 2 rounds was "high capacity." IMO, such bogus standards unreasonably infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights.