Banning AR-15s would be retarded and pointless. Just use a .223 rifle instead. Or would they ban those too?
Wait - is the AR-15 one of those weapons that is easily made automatic with minor modifications?
The big jump where we need to be concerned is with automatic weapons vs semi automatic weapons. "Assault weapon" implies it's capable of automatic fire. A semi auto assault weapon is like a cheeseburger without cheese.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIts one part. But thats neither here nor there. Anti-gun, big gov people are gonna call anything other than a musket a "assault weapon". But dont worry they will eventually get around to demonizing them too if they have their way.
I think the concern with the AR-15 is that it is possible to illegally modify it for full auto if you have the appropriate parts, and therefore it is possible that any particular AR-15 is automatic - illegally of course. You can't tell by looking at it. Or can you?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungleaving it up to the government, they would like to ban all civilian arms, including firearms and knives. look at the UK. they can barely carry a folding pocket knife. even pepper spray is illegal, they have to resort to some retarded red paint spray.
Banning AR-15s would be retarded and pointless. Just use a .223 rifle instead. Or would they ban those too?
Wait - is the AR-15 one of those weapons that is easily made automatic with minor modifications?
The big jump where we need to be concerned is with automatic weapons vs semi automatic weapons. "Assault weapon" implies it's capable of automatic fire. A semi auto assault weapon is like a cheeseburger without cheese.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritBesides, if it was really so important, the right to bear arms, wouldn't there be a Manhattan project on genetics to do just that? Don't know if i would still be able to play the guitar though. It might be great for fingerpicking I suppose, and you would REALLY be able to play clawhammer style banjo🙂
leaving it up to the government, they would like to ban all civilian arms, including firearms and knives. look at the UK. they can barely carry a folding pocket knife. even pepper spray is illegal, they have to resort to some retarded red paint spray.
Originally posted by sonhouse
Besides, if it was really so important, the right to bear arms, wouldn't there be a Manhattan project on genetics to do just that? Don't know if i would still be able to play the guitar though. It might be great for fingerpicking I suppose, and you would REALLY be able to play clawhammer style banjo🙂
Besides, if it was really so important, the right to bear arms-sonhouse
SCOTUS answered that question for you already,
"....concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule."
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214771
Originally posted by utherpendragonThis is an actual quote from Miller.
what case are you talking about ? all I gathered from U.S. v. Miller was that he had to register the sawed off shot gun.Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of we ...[text shortened]... to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214771
Originally posted by utherpendragonI didn't find that in the decision when I read it. Can you cite the portion? If so, then Miller was in fact overturned, even if the majority was afraid to say it.
The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory c ...[text shortened]... e citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214771
Here is the California statute.
California Penal Code Section 12276
Legal Research Home > California Laws > Penal Code > California Penal Code Section 12276
As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the
following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a) All of the following specified rifles:
(1) All AK series including, but not limited to, the models
identified as follows:
(A) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and
86S.
(B) Norinco 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S.
(C) Poly Technologies AKS and AK47.
(D) MAADI AK47 and ARM.
(2) UZI and Galil.
(3) Beretta AR-70.
(4) CETME Sporter.
(5) Colt AR-15 series.
(6) Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C.
(7) Fabrique Nationale FAL, LAR, FNC, 308 Match, and Sporter.
(8) MAS 223.
(9) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, and HK-PSG-1.
(10) The following MAC types:
(A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11.
(B) SWD Incorporated M11.
(11) SKS with detachable magazine.
(12) SIG AMT, PE-57, SG 550, and SG 551.
(13) Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48.
(14) Sterling MK-6.
(15) Steyer AUG.
(16) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78S.
(17) Armalite AR-180.
(18) Bushmaster Assault Rifle.
(19) Calico M-900.
(20) J&R ENG M-68.
(21) Weaver Arms Nighthawk.
(b) All of the following specified pistols:
(1) UZI.
(2) Encom MP-9 and MP-45.
(3) The following MAC types:
(A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11.
(B) SWD Incorporated M-11.
(C) Advance Armament Inc. M-11.
(D) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11.
(4) Intratec TEC-9.
(5) Sites Spectre.
(6) Sterling MK-7.
(7) Calico M-950.
(8) Bushmaster Pistol.
(c) All of the following specified shotguns:
(1) Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12.
(2) Striker 12.
(3) The Streetsweeper type S/S Inc. SS/12.
(d) Any firearm declared by the court pursuant to Section 12276.5
to be an assault weapon that is specified as an assault weapon in a
list promulgated pursuant to Section 12276.5.
(e) The term "series" includes all other models that are only
variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in
subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer.
(f) This section is declaratory of existing law, as amended, and a
clarification of the law and the Legislature's intent which bans the
weapons enumerated in this section, the weapons included in the list
promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to Section 12276.5, and
any other models which are only variations of those weapons with
minor differences, regardless of the manufacturer. The Legislature
has defined assault weapons as the types, series, and models listed
in this section because it was the most effective way to identify and
restrict a specific class of semiautomatic weapons.
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
(d) The following definitions shall apply under this section:
(1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214771
Originally posted by Zapp BranniganCase law already says no to that. In fact, it even overrode the first amendment when Progressive Magazine intended to publish directions on how to build an H-Bomb, using a combination of sources that are already open to the public - no secret information. They wanted to make a point of some sort.
right to keep an bear arms means if i want atomic, biological or nerve gas weapons i can do it so there
So you had two arguments.
Pro - since all of the information is coming from open sources, no illegally obtained information, and nothing based on secrets, the first amendment is paramount. There are no laws which prevent you from compiling a bunch of benign information even though when put together can have a negative impact on society. It is a very slippery slope if you're going to tell individuals that they have access to the information but they can't impart that information, and where do you draw the line?
Con - Dude! It's a f------g H-Bomb!
Con won in court.
Originally posted by KunsooMiller was distinguished not overruled. Buried in Scalia's 64 pages of turgid nitpicking are these sentences:
I didn't find that in the decision when I read it. Can you cite the portion? If so, then Miller was in fact overturned, even if the majority was afraid to say it.
We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.
Of course, this is utterly senseless. Modern assault rifles are not typically possessed by law abiding citizens because they are illegal, not because they wouldn't be useful tools to have when you were drummed into the non-existent militia. If Scalia was logically coherent (an idle dream I know) he would have to conclude that just as the Brown Bess musket was the standard allowable type of weapon for militia service in the 1790's, a fully automatic M-16 and some grenades should be the type of weapon an individual should be able to bear to be ready for militia service in the 2010's. Limiting the Amendment's reach to "lawful weapons" makes it a tautology.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMuskets weren't particularly effective in the hands of untrained militia either. Auto fire is very commonly used esp. as suppressive fire.
It is my understanding that automatic weapons are not particularly effective in the hands of the untrained. Our troops use semi-automatic fire most of the time I think.