Right to an AR-15

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

Do Americans Have a Constitutional Right to an AR-15? Gun-Rights Groups Ask the Supreme Court - WSJ

[J.D. Daily]

 

The majority opinions in cases like this in the 4th Circuit are why Mark W Smith, lawyer, 2nd Amendment scholar & YouTube channel owner says that if you follow him on YouTube will will be better informed than judges & lawyers.  Just about all these anti 2 Amendment judges ignore some of the parts of the controlling SCOTUS firearms ban cases, Heller, McDonald, Caetano & Bruen.  They typically cite Heller text re. self defense and ignore the lawful purposes text before self defense.  The 4th's opinion mentions lawful purposes after self defense then explains why AR-15's aren't a suitable self defense weapon. An bearable arm that is not unusual doesn't have to be for self defense only suitable for a lawful purpose.  The WSJ article's author isn't knowledgeable enough or too lazy to research the topic to not question the opinions of "experts".  Heller stated that bearable arms that are not both Dangerous AND Unusual can not be banned.  The only constitutional infringements are re. sensitive place & time.  Some opinions assume in law there are at least two levels of dangerous, dangerous & super dangerous.  And somehow they find Heller has an unenumerated test that super dangerous arms can be banned even if they aren't unusual.  Another problem is these arguments ignore the SCOTUS 2016 opinion in Caetano v. MA which defines when an arm is not unusual.  The opinion states when there are at least 200,000 kept by the people the arm is not unusual.  When arms are not unusual they are in common use therefore can't be banned. 

P.S. It is sad that inferior court judges after being guidance be SCOTUS deliberately ignore said quiescence by making stuff up to justify it.

[Rye Miles #13621]

On 9/1/2024 at 5:03 PM, J.D. Daily said:

 

The majority opinions in cases like this in the 4th Circuit are why Mark W Smith, lawyer, 2nd Amendment scholar & YouTube channel owner says that if you follow him on YouTube will will be better informed than judges & lawyers.  Just about all these anti 2 Amendment judges ignore some of the parts of the controlling SCOTUS firearms ban cases, Heller, McDonald, Caetano & Bruen.  They typically cite Heller text re. self defense and ignore the lawful purposes text before self defense.  The 4th's opinion mentions lawful purposes after self defense then explains why AR-15's aren't a suitable self defense weapon. An bearable arm that is not unusual doesn't have to be for self defense only suitable for a lawful purpose.  The WSJ article's author isn't knowledgeable enough or too lazy to research the topic to not question the opinions of "experts".  Heller stated that bearable arms that are not both Dangerous AND Unusual can not be banned.  The only constitutional infringements are re. sensitive place & time.  Some opinions assume in law there are at least two levels of dangerous, dangerous & super dangerous.  And somehow they find Heller has an unenumerated test that super dangerous arms can be banned even if they aren't unusual.  Another problem is these arguments ignore the SCOTUS 2016 opinion in Caetano v. MA which defines when an arm is not unusual.  The opinion states when there are at least 200,000 kept by the people the arm is not unusual.  When arms are not unusual they are in common use therefore can't be banned. 

P.S. It is sad that inferior court judges after being guidance be SCOTUS deliberately ignore said quiescence by making stuff up to justify it.

Only 200,000? I think it's a lot more that that! I've heard estimates on over a million at least! 

[J.D. Daily]

5 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Only 200,000? I think it's a lot more that that! I've heard estimates on over a million at least! 

Use DuckDuckGo to bring up the Caetano v. MA case.  The opinion declared MA's law that banned stun guns.  The opinion cites that stun guns (electronic arms) in 2016 were in common use because there are 200,000 in the peoples hands.

[Still hand Bill]

10 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Only 200,000? I think it's a lot more that that! I've heard estimates on over a million at least! 

Considering the AR pattern rifles are the best selling rifle in the us, they probably sell close to 1 million per year.   

[Blackwater 53393]

On 9/6/2024 at 7:38 AM, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Only 200,000? I think it's a lot more that that! I've heard estimates on over a million at least! 

The 200,000 number is a threshold!  It’s the line of demarcation that when crossed makes it a Constitutionally protected gun under the Second Amendment by definition as set down by the SCOTUS!!

 

Several million being a much larger number than 200,000, the AR15 is protected by this description of “in common use”!!

 

So are the millions of AK47s and SKSs and any other semi automatic rifles that meet that “200,000” level of employment!!

[Rye Miles #13621]

How about a mini 14 or an AK?? Just AR15's? This is so damn stupid it makes me sick! I don't think anyone on the SCOTUS even knows what an AR15 is! Well, maybe Clarence Thomas. Of course we have the right to own an AR 15! 

[Three Foot Johnson]

Wait til they ban these high-priced $1200+ AK's, SKS's, and Mini-14's that shoot 24" groups at 300 yards and they have to start using a $350 Savage Axis bolt action that shoots 3" instead. 

[John Kloehr]

8 minutes ago, Three Foot Johnson said:

Wait til they ban these high-priced $1200+ AK's, SKS's, and Mini-14's that shoot 24" groups at 300 yards and they have to start using a $350 Savage Axis bolt action that shoots 3" instead. 

That is the long-range plan in my opinion. Move to wider bans as each one does not work.

 

It would be like if most drunk drivers drove Hondas and banning them does not get rid of DUIs, so go to Toyotas next since those are what drunks switched to.

[Blackwater 53393]

2 hours ago, Three Foot Johnson said:

Wait til they ban these high-priced $1200+ AK's, SKS's, and Mini-14's that shoot 24" groups at 300 yards and they have to start using a $350 Savage Axis bolt action that shoots 3" instead. 

 

You couldn’t buy my AK for twice that and it shoots 2 1/2” three shot groups at 200yds if I do my part!!  Admittedly, it isn’t your run of the mill tin can AK, but it’ll do way more than what should ever be expected of what is supposed to be a close combat weapon!! It was never intended to be a long range sniping weapon!

 

NOW!! As to the intent of the, (less than loyal) opposition.  YES!! They will fight to get this step in the removal of their current weapon du jure and when/if they accomplish that, they’ll immediately move on to grabbing lever action rifles and single action handguns on their way to an eventual total disarmament of the entire populace!!