Guns & Outdoors Forum

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment ... amendment/

On Friday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned an injunction against Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban, deciding that AR-15s are not protected by the Second Amendment. This was a 2 to 1 decision

The logic behind the decision
1. in Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States found that machine guns were not protected under the Second Amendment because they were not “bearable” arms, and that is “because they can be dedicated exclusively to military use.”

2. The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easy it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a “bump stock” making an AR15 a machine gun.

3.both guns use the same ammunition and deliver the same kinetic energy.

My bet this goes the way of the California cases; endless appeals and rebukes.

But bump stocks are illegal now aren't they?

But bump stocks are illegal now aren't they?

Diver43 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 11:30 pm But bump stocks are illegal now aren't they?

Thanks to uncle Donny and his illegal executive orders.

But as of yesterday, the Supreme Court has agreed to take the bump stock case. So we may get a final answer next year some time.

To be fair, the gutless Republicans in Congress are also fairly complicit. They were on record wanting bump stocks illegal as machineguns (which due to NFA they could legislate on), but they didn't want to actually vote on it and lose their precious NRA endorsements, so they let a New York Democrat violate the Constitution's separation of powers and use the executive branch to ban a firearm accessory.

Nobody saw something like THAT coming.

3 judge panel, from a constitutional lawyer the two who voted to uphold the law are fit for a high school moot court. They ignored the SCOTUS rulings in Bruen and Heller specifically the Heller "in common use test" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrYwf3q_QfA

Ya know, if we had a true judicial system that was fair, a SC justice or DC judges party affiliation wouldn't matter on such decisions but here we are getting bent over again.

One wonders how after numerous forays both out of and into Germany, travelling largely on foot, with Thompsons, BARs, BRENs, STENs, PPSHs, MP40's, STG-44's, etc..., or after much dismounted stomping around SE Asia and Afghanistan with AK's and M16A1's. how you can say a machinegun is not "bearable".

I could argue a flintlock with a 36” long barrel isn’t “bearable”

44"

Japhy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 11:03 pm https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment ... amendment/



2. The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easy it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a “bump stock” making an AR15 a machine gun.

Huh. So, he is saying that the M16 is indistinguishable from the most widely used rifle in America? That the M16/M4 is in… let’s say… common use? … across the land?

Interesting.

bullsi1911 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 12:29 pm

Japhy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 11:03 pm https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment ... amendment/



2. The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easy it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a “bump stock” making an AR15 a machine gun.

Huh. So, he is saying that the M16 is indistinguishable from the most widely used rifle in America? That the M16/M4 is in… let’s say… common use? … across the land?

Interesting.

I've long maintained that if the average teenager in the 3rd World gets a full auto AK. . .then where the HELL is MINE???

Yeah. . .common use. That whole "militia necessary to the security of a free state" clause pretty clearly implies having tools that are effective in shooing off a standing army, which pretty clearly implies equivalent hardware to that in use by said standing army.

These Circuit rulings are indeed more than a little ludicrous.