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

[Lafayette]

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)

I’m not saying they DON’T have sporting uses.

But I’m tired of kowtowing to the gun grabbers and pretending that guns don’t have uses beyond target shooting and hunting.

AR-15’s exist for many reasons.

 

[D&Ds]

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

 

[Blacksmith101]

No matter what you label them as the truth is they are "Arms" as defined by the SCOTUS and they are in "Common Use for lawful purposes" as defined by the SCOTUS. Thus the burden shifts to the Government to show there were similar restrictions at the time of the founding.............I am waiting..........

 

[Brychan]

AR-15 varmint rifle.

 

[Bob A]

What is an "assault weapon"?

What is a "woman"?

Merely an artful deflection, meant to direct an argument into a swamp.

 

[MattFinals718]

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.

The problem with what you're saying here is that in the mid-80s, the term "assault weapon" hadn't yet become what you call polit-speak. That is why it was used by Gun Digest, and many in the gun-owning community. "Assault weapons" became a political issue mostly after the 1989 Stockton schoolyard shooting. It is disingenuous to pretend that the term was invented by the gun controllers and that it has always been anathema to the 2A community; an examination of literature makes it clear that this was not the case.

You're also now diverging from my main argument here. This isn't about definitions; it's about what the 2A protects and doesn't protect. Our side has spent too much time and wasted intellectual capital playing the game of arguing that a lack of full-auto capability makes an AR-15 into a "sporting rifle" and not an "assault rifle." My point is, ANY AR-15, regardless of fire control modes, is an "assault rifle," but it is also constitutionally protected and cannot be banned specifically because it is the type of weapon that a militia requires in order to defend against tyranny. Why are you playing their (i.e., gun controllers') game? Why don't you want to say, "The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable an effective citizen militia, and AR-15s are protected because they are the ideal weapon for the militiaman (or woman)?" Are you really going to pretend that every semi-automatic gun is identical and that the only differences are how they look?

Anyway, to your point: The term "assault weapon" encompasses a variety of weapons - both select-fire and semi only - that are designed to be controllable when fired rapidly. To the example we've discussed: It is not incorrect to describe an Uzi Carbine as a "Pistol Caliber Carbine," but it is also not incorrect to say that it belongs to a broader class of "assault weapons" which includes its full-auto ancestor, the Uzi submachine gun.

This feels like a repeat of the Chippman congressional hearing.

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

Don't pat yourself on the back yet - we're not done here.

And don't compare me to Chipman (not "Chippman"). I know the difference between my AR-15s and my Steyr SPP vs. any of my other semi-automatic firearms. I also know which gun I'm going to reach for if I were to ever face a BLM riot in the future.

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)

I’m not saying they DON’T have sporting uses.

But I’m tired of kowtowing to the gun grabbers and pretending that guns don’t have uses beyond target shooting and hunting.

AR-15’s exist for many reasons.

^^^^^^^ This. Exactly what I am trying to say.

Sure, an AR-15 has sporting purposes. I use mine for sporting purposes all the time. I also own guns that are strictly for sporting purposes, that I also wouldn't use if I were trying to defend against tyranny (whether it's the tyranny of government, or the tyranny of political rioters).

I think that the whole "an AR-15 is not an assault rifle" argument dates back to the days before the Heller decision. Back in those days, we weren't really sure if SCOTUS was ever going to rule in our favor, so I can understand that some folks on our side felt that they had to resort to pretending that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle because they didn't think they'd win with the general public. But now that SCOTUS has ruled (albeit in a flawed ruling with circular reasoning) that the 2nd Amendment applies to an individual right and that classes of commonly-owned firearms cannot be banned, it's time to retire this argument.

I'm not anti-ARs or anti-assault weapons; I'm against us letting the gun controllers shape the debate by implying that "sporting" purposes are the only legitimate uses for firearms.

 

[MattFinals718]

No matter what you label them as the truth is they are "Arms" as defined by the SCOTUS and they are in "Common Use for lawful purposes" as defined by the SCOTUS. Thus the burden shifts to the Government to show there were similar restrictions at the time of the founding.............I am waiting..........

Yes, exactly. Nothing else needs to be said. It should be irrelevant whether or not an AR-15 is an "assault rifle" or not, so far as their legality goes.

What is an "assault weapon"?

What is a "woman"?

Merely an artful deflection, meant to direct an argument into a swamp.

Can't really tell whose side you're on right now. But I'll point out that it annoys me when folks on our side will criticize the woke left for making clearly ridiculous statements such as, "gender is a social construct," but then they'll also play the same game with defining terms like "assault rifle" or "assault weapon." Does no good for our credibility or intellectual high ground.

 

[Bob A]

Can't really tell whose side you're on right now. But I'll point out that it annoys me when folks on our side will criticize the woke left for making clearly ridiculous statements such as, "gender is a social construct," but then they'll also play the same game with defining terms like "assault rifle" or "assault weapon." Does no good for our credibility or intellectual high ground.

Yup.

I'm on the side of reason and clarity of thought, and opposed to monosyllabic arguments. (Except when I'm using them).

 

[Steel Hunter]

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?

FSTC-CW-07-03-70. Which is then superseded by ST-HB-07-03-74 and carries the same definition.

Factually under the United States Army definition, AR-15s are not assault rifles. There is no pretending. There is evidence in text and throughout history of the development of select-fire weapons.

The test is text, history, and tradition, not usefulness for [insert any purpose here]. It seems you are ignoring some very large differences in the legal aspects of ownership when it comes to semi-auto vs. full auto by saying "The fact that they don't have auto settings does not matter." It matters very significantly as to whether you can own something or not in the reality where there are hundreds of varying laws state to state relating to NFA weapons.

Anyways, I don't want to derail this topic any further as nothing productive is going to come from it. Agree to disagree and that's fine. One more month until En Banc stuff happens. Hopefully SCOTUS will give us good news before that, but highly unlikely.

 

[MattFinals718]

FSTC-CW-07-03-70. Which is then superseded by ST-HB-07-03-74 and carries the same definition.

Factually under the United States Army definition, AR-15s are not assault rifles. There is no pretending. There is evidence in text and throughout history of the development of select-fire weapons.

The test is text, history, and tradition, not usefulness for [insert any purpose here]. It seems you are ignoring some very large differences in the legal aspects of ownership when it comes to semi-auto vs. full auto by saying "The fact that they don't have auto settings does not matter." It matters very significantly as to whether you can own something or not in the reality where there are hundreds of varying laws state to state relating to NFA weapons.

Anyways, I don't want to derail this topic any further as nothing productive is going to come from it. Agree to disagree and that's fine. One more month until En Banc stuff happens. Hopefully SCOTUS will give us good news before that, but highly unlikely.

The U.S. Army is not a law-making or regulatory body when it comes to firearms, and neither is the DIA (for which ST-HB-07-03-74 was written). Their definition in a guidebook that is meant to aid the broader intelligence community is not at all authoritative in any legal sense that I can see. ST-HB-07-03-74 was written as a guide on ComBloc weapons, not the civilian firearms market in the U.S. It was also written in 1974, which means that it predates the explosion of the Title I "assault weapons" trend in the U.S. market (the early AR-15 Sporters and AR-180s notwithstanding). Context matters here, as does legal standing.

And no, I am not ignoring the legal differences between a semi-auto AR-15 vs. a select-fire M16 or M4; I'm very well aware that one is a Title I firearm, the other is a Title II firearm. You're making straw-man arguments, and also diverging from my real point. What matters to me is whether the absence of a full-auto function really makes a practical difference in the effectiveness of a rifle (as opposed to a team- or squad-level suppressive-fire weapon such as a belt-fed machine gun). I'd argue that it does not. The proof of this is the fact that both the burst and full-auto functions on most military M16s and M4s have rarely been used in combat, because militaries' collective experience over many decades has shown that, without a great deal of training and experience, firing a rifle on full-auto tends to just waste ammo. (And the litmus test of the utility of something in combat is not whether a small minority of elite, well-trained operators can use it, but whether the majority of rank-and-file troops can use it and be effective.)

It is also a claim that has been made by some of our community's experts, such as Larry Vickers. Watch his Forgotten Weapons video on his issued Colt 723 carbine (from his early days in SFOD-D); he mentions that they almost never used the full-auto function, either in training or during operations. I also can't count the number of times I've seen Arfcom members say that they'd take their personal AR-15 to war over their issued M4 if they could. What does that tell you?

 

[Michael S]

I love reading your arguments. But we all know it dose not matter. The aim is to make all semi automatic guns illegal. Then go after everything else. So we must fight everything.

 

[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

Boy, I don’t know which is better, the law review article or the discussion that came after.

Great stuff here!

 

[Boats]

The problem with what you're saying here is that in the mid-80s, the term "assault weapon" hadn't yet become what you call polit-speak. That is why it was used by Gun Digest, and many in the gun-owning community. "Assault weapons" became a political issue mostly after the 1989 Stockton schoolyard shooting. It is disingenuous to pretend that the term was invented by the gun controllers and that it has always been anathema to the 2A community; an examination of literature makes it clear that this was not the case.

You're also now diverging from my main argument here. This isn't about definitions; it's about what the 2A protects and doesn't protect. Our side has spent too much time and wasted intellectual capital playing the game of arguing that a lack of full-auto capability makes an AR-15 into a "sporting rifle" and not an "assault rifle." My point is, ANY AR-15, regardless of fire control modes, is an "assault rifle," but it is also constitutionally protected and cannot be banned specifically because it is the type of weapon that a militia requires in order to defend against tyranny. Why are you playing their (i.e., gun controllers') game? Why don't you want to say, "The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable an effective citizen militia, and AR-15s are protected because they are the ideal weapon for the militiaman (or woman)?" Are you really going to pretend that every semi-automatic gun is identical and that the only differences are how they look?

Anyway, to your point: The term "assault weapon" encompasses a variety of weapons - both select-fire and semi only - that are designed to be controllable when fired rapidly. To the example we've discussed: It is not incorrect to describe an Uzi Carbine as a "Pistol Caliber Carbine," but it is also not incorrect to say that it belongs to a broader class of "assault weapons" which includes its full-auto ancestor, the Uzi submachine gun.



Don't pat yourself on the back yet - we're not done here.

And don't compare me to Chipman (not "Chippman"). I know the difference between my AR-15s and my Steyr SPP vs. any of my other semi-automatic firearms. I also know which gun I'm going to reach for if I were to ever face a BLM riot in the future.





^^^^^^^ This. Exactly what I am trying to say.

Sure, an AR-15 has sporting purposes. I use mine for sporting purposes all the time. I also own guns that are strictly for sporting purposes, that I also wouldn't use if I were trying to defend against tyranny (whether it's the tyranny of government, or the tyranny of political rioters).

I think that the whole "an AR-15 is not an assault rifle" argument dates back to the days before the Heller decision. Back in those days, we weren't really sure if SCOTUS was ever going to rule in our favor, so I can understand that some folks on our side felt that they had to resort to pretending that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle because they didn't think they'd win with the general public. But now that SCOTUS has ruled (albeit in a flawed ruling with circular reasoning) that the 2nd Amendment applies to an individual right and that classes of commonly-owned firearms cannot be banned, it's time to retire this argument.

I'm not anti-ARs or anti-assault weapons; I'm against us letting the gun controllers shape the debate by implying that "sporting" purposes are the only legitimate uses for firearms.

In part, I agree with you. We shouldn't have to let the gun controllers shape the debate about what is and isn't an assault weapon, especially when the term assault weapon vs sporting rifle is a break over point between constitutional protection and a ban.

I would also agree that the term sporting rifle is as much a horse$shit term as assault weapon. As much as assault weapon is used to justify restrictions, sporting rifle is used to justify freedom......which shouldn't need to be justified in the first place.

I would contend that the term assault weapon has no definition, as does sporting weapon. Gun digests definition is different from California's definition, which is different from Marylands definition which is different from any particular person's definition, etc etc. It is subjective, therefore undefinable.

Assault RIFLE, Battle rifle, revolver, pistol, shotgun, submachine gun, pcc, anti-material rifle, etc all have finite definitions.

 

[Lafayette]

In part, I agree with you. We shouldn't have to let the gun controllers shape the debate about what is and isn't an assault weapon, especially when the term assault weapon vs sporting rifle is a break over point between constitutional protection and a ban.

I would also agree that the term sporting rifle is as much a horse$shit term as assault weapon. As much as assault weapon is used to justify restrictions, sporting rifle is used to justify freedom......which shouldn't need to be justified in the first place.

I would contend that the term assault weapon has no definition, as does sporting weapon. Gun digests definition is different from California's definition, which is different from Marylands definition which is different from any particular person's definition, etc etc. It is subjective, therefore undefinable.

Assault RIFLE, Battle rifle, revolver, pistol, shotgun, submachine gun, pcc, anti-material rifle, etc all have finite definitions.

This is my stance. For instance, let’s take the term “murder weapon.” It could be ANYTHING. Purpose and use defines it. If a candlestick sits on the mantle and lights the room, that’s one thing. But when you beat someone to death with it, it becomes eligible for the moniker “murder weapon.”

Assault weapon to me is equally meaningless AND meaningful. It only has purpose under specific circumstances - but if those circumstances come into being, then the term has meaning.

I’m just arguing that it doesn’t matter whether we say assault weapon or MSR. The point is that the 2A is unequivocal. It protects the individual right to possess bearable arms (for lawful purposes.)

Hope this clarifies things. If it doesn’t, I blame the bourbon.

 

[Jim12]

What is an "assault weapon"?

What is a "woman"?

Merely an artful deflection, meant to direct an argument into a swamp.

Why can’t the OP correct this thread title’s misnomer from “remits” to “remands”?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

 

[Blacksmith101]

It does not matter if it is an "Assault Weapon" or a "Modern Sporting Arm" an arm can be anything useful for offense or defense.

Heller’s Definition of Arms and Its Potential Implications
"The Second Amendment protects arms, not firearms and in Heller, the Supreme Court defined an arm as any “[w]eapon[] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.’” The Court explained that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” Heller referenced both knives and bows and arrows. Plain meaning and Heller thus point to a Second Amendment that protects much more than firearms.

Courts after Heller acknowledge this result. In 2016, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, every Justice agreed that a Massachusetts court erred when it reasoned that stun guns are not arms. The Supreme Court explained that Heller both “rejected the proposition that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected” and embraced protection for weapons “that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Consistent with both Heller and Caetano, lower courts have concluded that the Second Amendment also covers knives, tasers, and police
batons. Chemical devices like pepper spray almost surely count too, as — arguably — do lawfully owned objects not designed as weapons but possessed or used as them, like many common knives and baseball bats."

 

[Worsley]

There will come a day, in the near future, where none of this will even matter.

 

[Ponder_MD]

I’m not saying they DON’T have sporting uses.

But I’m tired of kowtowing to the gun grabbers and pretending that guns don’t have uses beyond target shooting and hunting.

AR-15’s exist for many reasons.

Typically, an AR-15 is for "lots of tyranny."

 

[pcfixer]

It does not matter if it is an "Assault Weapon" or a "Modern Sporting Arm" an arm can be anything useful for offense or defense.

Heller’s Definition of Arms and Its Potential Implications
"The Second Amendment protects arms, not firearms and in Heller, the Supreme Court defined an arm as any “[w]eapon[] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.’” The Court explained that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” Heller referenced both knives and bows and arrows. Plain meaning and Heller thus point to a Second Amendment that protects much more than firearms.

Courts after Heller acknowledge this result. In 2016, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, every Justice agreed that a Massachusetts court erred when it reasoned that stun guns are not arms. The Supreme Court explained that Heller both “rejected the proposition that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected” and embraced protection for weapons “that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Consistent with both Heller and Caetano, lower courts have concluded that the Second Amendment also covers knives, tasers, and police
batons. Chemical devices like pepper spray almost surely count too, as — arguably — do lawfully owned objects not designed as weapons but possessed or used a

s them, like many common knives and baseball bats."

And Includes- All ammunition and magazines of all capacity.

 

[P-12 Norm]

I’m not saying they DON’T have sporting uses.

But I’m tired of kowtowing to the gun grabbers and pretending that guns don’t have uses beyond target shooting and hunting.

AR-15’s exist for many reasons.

Let's get down to the basic premise of the 2nd Amendment. It was neither for protecting hunting, nor sport. It was because our Founding Fathers knew that government, while a necessary evil, required a citizenry with the means to resist the inevitable slides into tyranny. The fact our government is fighting so tirelessly to remove access to "weapons of war" from the citizenry, shows the necessity of us fighting to keep them.

Unconstitutionality | Encyclopedia.com

UNCONSTITUTIONALITYThe American concept of unconstitutionality was born before the Constitution was adopted. The stamp act congress of 1765, for example, declared that acts of Parliament imposing taxation without representation were unconstitutional and need not be obeyed. Then as now, of...

www.encyclopedia.com