I loath to sound so flippant, if it looks like an M16, it is to those intent on removing 2A Rights and the minor issue of facts irrelevant. The end justified the means in their view. So, perhaps a presentation of the facts to a court may sway them, I will not hold my breath.
Henry Schaffer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> From the Slate article: >> >> >> "The state recognized that the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. >> Heller >> protects citizens’ right to keep handguns in the home. > > > >> But it argued that >> the firearms it had proscribed constituted “dangerous and unusual >> weapons,” which the Heller court said could be outlawed. Indeed, >> Maryland >> pointed out, the Heller court explicitly declares that especially >> dangerous weapons “that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles >> and the like—may be banned.” >> > > Does the AR-15 fall into this category? M16 rifles are partially banned > since, as "machineguns", they are both subject to the NFA of 1934 and any > manufactured after 1986 are really banned (for non-gov't ownership.) > Also, > they are clearly "useful in military service". > > The AR-15 is *not* a "machinegun", and I'm not aware that it has been > used in the US military service or in any other military service. But it > does *look* a lot like the M16.d > > The AK-47 as generally found in the US also is not a "machinegun" and > again I'm not aware of any military use. What is confusing is that the > *military* (machinegun) version has the same name, in addition to them > looking alike. > > Are semi-automatic rifles that look like military weapons "dangerous and > unusual"? It appears that there are over 2 1/2 million (maybe 4 million) > AR-15 rifles owned by people in the USA( > http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_a > ssault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html) I cant find the US ownership > number for the AK-47, but I'll guess a larger number because it is a less > expensive gun and generally considered less desirable. Add in other > semi-automatic rifles with replaceable magazines - and we're likely well > over 5 million - maybe approaching 10 million. > > Does the "unusual" label fit? > > > What about "dangerous"? Semi-automatic firearms have been available > commercially for well over a century - Colt started production of the > Browning semi-auto pistol in 1900, and the famous 1911 Colt dates back to > 1911 (and there was an earlier version.) Semi-auto rifles may have > lagged a bit in production, but the M1 Garand dating to the 1920's was > heavily used in WWII and later - and is considerably more powerful than > either the Ar-15 or AK-47, and are a large variety of hunting rifles. > > All firearms are "dangerous", but perhaps they need to be especially > dangerous to be banned? Looking through District of Columbia v Heller I > see wording like,"in cases where a governmental body has deemed a > particular type of weapon especially dangerous." and "highly dangerous". > > So - we come to "dangerous *and* unusual" [emphasis added] It seems hard > to me to put For a more thorough treatment see > http://www.progunleaders.org/Dangerous%20and%20Unusual/ > > > >> What strikes me as bizzar is, it was not long ago that the focus on gun >> control was on handguns. Handguncontrol et al, argued that handguns >> were involved in most firearms murders, were easy to conceal, 2A only >> applied to rifles, etc, etc. Now, it's a 180 focus being they lost that >> battle and now "only want to rid us of those evil black rifles made for >> war" and all that. >> >> The irony of that 180 should not be lost. >> >> > > Yes. :-) > > > --henry schaffer > > >> >> >> Aaron Clements wrote: >> >>> This isn't the first case to so hold. Judge Easterbrook's opinion in >>> Highland Park from the 7th Circuit did likewise, though Easterbrook >>> went to great lengths to apply tests that violate explicit language of >>> both Heller and McDonald ... and the SCOTUS refused to grant cert, >>> resulting in Thomas's dissent opining that the 7th had "relegat[ed] >>> the Second Amendment to a second-class right." >>> >>> >>> >>> Truly, I don't know what the suit proponents expected by bringing >>> suit at the present time in a circuit composed of ten Democrats and >>> five Republicans (by original appointing President). One of the four >>> Clinton >>> appointees abandoned the ideological ship and authored the dissent >>> joined by three Bush '41/'43 appointees; the lone remaining Reagan >>> appointee balanced that out by joining the other three Clinton and six >>> Obama >>> appointees. >>> >>> >>> From: Henry Schaffer <[email protected]> >>> To: firearmsregprof <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:42 PM >>> Subject: banning "assault weapons" >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> (haven't read this 116 page item yet) >>> >>> >>> >>> An article which called my attention to this opinion - and which >>> loves it: >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/21/appeals_ >>> >> court_holds_sec >>> ond_amendment_doesn_t_protect_assault_weapons.html >>> >>> --henry schaffer >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To post, send message to [email protected] >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that >>> are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can >>> (rightly >>> or wrongly) forward the messages to others. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To post, send message to [email protected] >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that >>> are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can >>> (rightly >>> or wrongly) forward the messages to others. >> >> >> -- >> Sincerely, >> >> >> Author and industry consultant, Will Brink @ www.BrinkZone.com >> >> >> Free articles, free ebook, and other stuff of interest to fitness >> enthusiasts, see my site at: >> >> http://www.brinkzone.com/ >> >> >> Remember, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition >> from mediocre minds." -- Einstein >> >> > -- Sincerely, Author and industry consultant, Will Brink @ www.BrinkZone.com Free articles, free ebook, and other stuff of interest to fitness enthusiasts, see my site at: http://www.brinkzone.com/ Remember, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -- Einstein _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
