Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

[dblas]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-863/300101/20240208115328783_Bianchi%20Petition.pdf

You're late by about a week.

 

[dblas]

Is that different than what was posted last week?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope, same document.

 

[Some Guy]

This link seems to work for me.

The link I posted previously gets buggy and actually directs the user to the Supreme Court main page. This link should take the user to the actual Bianchi docket page.

Docket for 23-863

 

[whiskey3]

Someone has probably already linked this, but if not, a fascinating historical analysis on military style arms being Most protected.


https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=wlr

 

[MattFinals718]

Someone has probably already linked this, but if not, a fascinating historical analysis on military style arms being Most protected.


https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=wlr

This is indeed an analysis that is well-researched and well-argued, and also the sort of analysis that I wish SCOTUS had themselves undertaken before they issued the Heller decision in 2008. I agree in particular with his argument that, "For its part, the Supreme Court has only tiptoed around the topic of the Second Amendment’s anti-tyranny purpose." I think that this analysis also demonstrates two ways that gun controllers are right - for the wrong reasons - and pro-2A advocates are wrong, but for the right reasons:

- The Heller decision really does have (as Justice Stevens argued in his dissenting opinion) quite a bit of circular logic built into it. If classes of firearms cannot be banned only because they are common use, then those sentiments prevent any court from finding the 1986 FOPA's ban on machine guns to be unconstitutional (assuming that SCOTUS does not regard 100,000 registered "transferrable" machine guns to be an "in common use" quantity). We should regard this sort of circular reasoning to be unfavorable to our side and contrary to the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

- Our side also really needs to give the whole "AR-15s are not really assault rifles" argument a rest, because we shouldn't be playing into the gun controllers' sentiments that only weapons with sporting and/or personal self-defense uses can be legitimately owned. I understand why our side keeps arguing that "assault rifle" is a politically charged term and that anything used by a criminal is an "assault weapon", but we can't let the gun controllers shape the debate this way. Otherwise, we're implicitly conceding the validity of their reasoning that only sporting and self-defense, not fighting tyranny, are valid firearms uses protected by the 2A. An AR-15 is an "assault rifle" as that term was conceived in the days before it became the target of gun controllers. It is also protected under the 2A specifically because it is similar to its full-auto M16/M4 breathren, as this quality makes it essential to the purpose for which the 2A was created. Period. I don't see why we need to say anything else, or resort to calling them "modern sporting rifles" or whatever.

 

[rambling_one]

Every time I open this thread I'm hoping a higher court has stepped into the fray. Every time I am disappointed.

 

[Inigoes]

Every time I open this thread I'm hoping a higher court has stepped into the fray. Every time I am disappointed.

One day in the not so distant future, you will be filled with glee when you open this thread.

Today nor tomorrow is not that day, just sayin...

 

[River02]

- Our side also really needs to give the whole "AR-15s are not really assault rifles" argument a rest, because we shouldn't be playing into the gun controllers' sentiments that only weapons with sporting and/or personal self-defense uses can be legitimately owned. I understand why our side keeps arguing that "assault rifle" is a politically charged term and that anything used by a criminal is an "assault weapon", but we can't let the gun controllers shape the debate this way. Otherwise, we're implicitly conceding the validity of their reasoning that only sporting and self-defense, not fighting tyranny, are valid firearms uses protected by the 2A. An AR-15 is an "assault rifle" as that term was conceived in the days before it became the target of gun controllers. It is also protected under the 2A specifically because it is similar to its full-auto M16/M4 breathren, as this quality makes it essential to the purpose for which the 2A was created. Period. I don't see why we need to say anything else, or resort to calling them "modern sporting rifles" or whatever.

Yep-- ^^^^ This...

 

[Occam]

 

[Steel Hunter]

An AR-15 is an "assault rifle" as that term was conceived in the days before it became the target of gun controllers. It is also protected under the 2A specifically because it is similar to its full-auto M16/M4 breathren, as this quality makes it essential to the purpose for which the 2A was created. Period. I don't see why we need to say anything else, or resort to calling them "modern sporting rifles" or whatever.

Historically, "assault rifle" has two defining features. Those are selectable fire modes and detachable magazines. Unless you can switch between semi-auto and full auto or semi and burst fire, it doesn't meet the traditional definition.

Edit: I would note the Army specifically calls the Colt AR-15 not an assault weapon because it does not meet the definition.

 

[Boats]

Historically, "assault rifle" has two defining features. Those are selectable fire modes and detachable magazines. Unless you can switch between semi-auto and full auto or semi and burst fire, it doesn't meet the traditional definition.

Edit: I would note the Army specifically calls the Colt AR-15 not an assault weapon because it does not meet the definition.

This.

Assault rifle is a thing. Assault weapon is not. Assault rifles are intermediate cartridge and select fire, assault weapons are anything that looks scary.

Assault rifle was coined by the inventors of the assault rifle: zee Germans. "sturmgehwer" literally means assault rifle

Assault weapon was coined by gun grabbers.

 

[MattFinals718]

Historically, "assault rifle" has two defining features. Those are selectable fire modes and detachable magazines. Unless you can switch between semi-auto and full auto or semi and burst fire, it doesn't meet the traditional definition.

Edit: I would note the Army specifically calls the Colt AR-15 not an assault weapon because it does not meet the definition.

Yes, I have been hearing this argument for about as long as I've been on the Gunterwebs (20+ years now, since before the Federal AWB expired). I respectfully disagree. An AR-15 may be a slightly neutered version of an M16 or M4, but select-fire in an infantry rifle has very few effective uses in combat, or at least, few that can be taught to the average 18-year old E-1 in Basic training. I have AR-15s in my safe that I would much rather take to war than the current-issue M4A1s carried by most of our soldiers and Marines today (though on that note, I have a Colt M4A1 clone, too). The fact that they don't have auto settings does not matter.

Don't you think that by pretending that AR-15s are not assault rifles but "Modern Sporting Rifles" (assuming you're using that term?), you're playing their game? You're basically accepting at face value their argument that only sporting weapons are protected by the 2A. Whereas I'm brave enough to say, "Who cares what they think?"

Also, what Army document are you referring to?

This.

Assault rifle is a thing. Assault weapon is not. Assault rifles are intermediate cartridge and select fire, assault weapons are anything that looks scary.

Assault rifle was coined by the inventors of the assault rifle: zee Germans. "sturmgehwer" literally means assault rifle

Assault weapon was coined by gun grabbers.

No, it really wasn't. I have a collection of old gun literature on my bookshelf, one of which is the 1986 edition of the Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons. That book has sections covering both select-fire weapons (it went to press just before the FOPA was passed) and semi-automatic Title I equivalents. The cover of the book even features a picture of two guns that are not select fire: An Uzi Carbine and an Uzi Pistol. So are you accusing Gun Digest of being a bunch of gun grabbers?

 

[Apd09]

The cover of the book even features a picture of two guns that are not select fire: An Uzi Carbine and an Uzi Pistol. So are you accusing Gun Digest of being a bunch of gun grabbers?

Just let them go, bringing rational empirical evidence with sound reasoning to the internet is not allowed. People getting ginned up over their steadfast statements and god given right to espouse them is what the internet was created by Al Gore to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattFinals718]

Just let them go, bringing rational empirical evidence with sound reasoning to the internet is not allowed. People getting ginned up over their steadfast statements and god given right to espouse them is what the internet was created by Al Gore to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I guess not. :shurgs:

 

[Boats]

No, it really wasn't. I have a collection of old gun literature on my bookshelf, one of which is the 1986 edition of the Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons. That book has sections covering both select-fire weapons (it went to press just before the FOPA was passed) and semi-automatic Title I equivalents. The cover of the book even features a picture of two guns that are not select fire: An Uzi Carbine and an Uzi Pistol. So are you accusing Gun Digest of being a bunch of gun grabbers?

No, I am accusing them (gun digest) of being idiots and using polit-speak. the uzi is submachine gun, or pistol caliber carbine.

Why don't you define "assault weapon" for the class? Please post more than one reference.

 

[Boats]

Just let them go, bringing rational empirical evidence with sound reasoning to the internet is not allowed. People getting ginned up over their steadfast statements and god given right to espouse them is what the internet was created by Al Gore to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This feels like a repeat of the Chippman congressional hearing.

"what is an assault weapon?"
"I don't know senator"

 

[Lafayette]

Is my AR-15 an assault weapon? Depends how I use it.

Frankly the whole “Modern Sporting Rifle” is a bunch of marketing hooey.

 

[Inigoes]

Is my AR-15 an assault weapon? Depends how I use it.

Frankly the whole “Modern Sporting Rifle” is a bunch of marketing hooey.

Not really

The gun grabbers say AR-15s have no sporting purpose.

Well guess what? AR-15s are used for all kind of medium game hunting (hogs, deer mostly)

 

[LeadSled1]

Shotgun, muzzleloader, crossbow, rimfire, etc have all been built in the AR15 platform.

 

[Apd09]

Shotgun, muzzleloader, crossbow, rimfire, etc have all been built in the AR15 platform.

And they build nerf guns to mimic it complete with picatinny rails to customize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk