Assault Weapons Ban
Bigstock

 

Federal District Court Judge Roger Benitez is the best friend California gun owners have in the judicial system. He’s the judge who has ruled against the state’s magazine capacity limit law, touching off freedom week and airlifts of standard capacity magazines into the state. He’s also ruled against the state’s ammunition background check law.

Now, Judge Benitez has handed California gun owners an even bigger victory in striking down the state’s “assault weapons” ban. Benitez issued an order this afternoon in the case of Miller v. Bonta, declaring the ban unconstitutional.

Here’s the Firearms Policy Coalition’s press release on the ruling . . .

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California has issued an opinion in Miller v. Bonta (previously Miller v. Becerra), holding that California’s tyrannical ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The opinion, along with other filings in this case, can be viewed at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com.

In 2019, FPC developed and filed Miller v. Becerra, a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) ban on common semiautomatic arms with certain characteristics, including those with ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Throughout the lawsuit, FPC argued that the State’s ban prohibits arms that are constitutionally protected, no more lethal than other certain arms that are not banned, and commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes in the vast majority of the United States.

In the opinion, the Court ruled that many categories of firearms California bans as so-called “assault weapons” are protected by the Second Amendment, and that “[t]he Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.” It went on to order an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:

    • California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);
    • § 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);
    • § 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);
    • § 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);
    • § 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;
    • §30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,
    • the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).

“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”

“We are delighted with Judge Benitez’s careful consideration of the law and facts in this case,” commented Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “The State’s ban on these common semi-automatic firearms with common characteristics flies in the face of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and the natural right to keep and bear arms.”

“At trial, we presented dispositive evidence that the term ‘assault weapon’ has always been an arbitrary label used by anti-gun governments to ban constitutionally protected firearms,” explained FPC attorney George Lee. “In the end, the State’s rationale for banning these firearms simply could not hold up. This win is a watershed moment for civil rights, and will restore liberty to countless Californians that have been subjected to gross tyranny for years.”

“While this victory is most certainly a valuable one, it’s also important to understand how impactful this decision will be in restoring Second Amendment rights not only in California, but across the entire country,” noted FPC Attorney John Dillon. “This landmark trial win points the way to victory everywhere these unconstitutional bans exist.”

“We are pleased that the district court engaged in the detailed and thoughtful analysis required when a fundamental constitutional right is at stake,” explained FPC appellate counsel Erik Jaffe. “Unlike some appellate decisions in this area, Judge Benitez held the government to its burdens of proof, recognized the high hurdles the government must overcome when burdening the right to keep and bear arms, and gave the Second Amendment the weight and respect it deserves. Such a standard was rightfully unable to be met by such a broad and oppressive law, leading to a huge victory for the People, their right to keep and bear arms, and FPC. We now must urge the Court of Appeals to give the same respect to that express constitutional right, rather than engage in the ad hoc balancing and functionally zero weighting of a fundamental right that is too often the norm in Second Amendment cases.”

Individuals who want to support the Miller v. Bonta case can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

For more on these cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on InstagramTwitterFacebookYouTube.

The state will, of course, appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Here’s Judge Benitez’s order . . .

119 COMMENTS

    • Saint Benitez.

      I will gladly donate to any fund that seeks to commission a bronze bust of this man for future generations to admire.

      (Antifa, stay away)

    • A federal judge may be removed from office in three ways:
      1. Retirement. (Judge Benitez is actually retired. He is a senior status judge.)
      2. Death
      3. Impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    • Don’t start “burning bras” just yet, this thing will be headed directly to the ninth circuit where the appropriate “judges” will be hand picked, then after they shoot it down MAYBE the SCOTUS will take it on (in two or three years)…

      • The last thing the antis want is this going to the scotus. 9th circus will have to make a hard decision whether to let it stand or to kick it up to where it could hamstring AWBs for the entire country, after putting the decision on stay for as long as they are humanly able.

        • Even if 9th circuit lets it stand, then we would have split circuits; 2 upheld CT and NY bans. Isn’t split circuits supposed to increase chances of a SCOTUS hearing?

      • I’m sure he’s directly referring to the case where California prosecuted and convicted a man of having an illegal dirk/dagger for having an opened swiss army knife. This conviction was overturned because it was idiocy.

    • Not so fast…The Second Amendment should have never, ever been placed on the table when history has confirmed Gun Control is beyond f-n morally reprehensible.

  1. His decision will not stand. 9th circuit will overturn it. A stay will be issued until they do. Sorry Kalifornia, other methods will have to be utilized. Mean ones. And that is why we fail.

    • This is pretty much instant en banc. I don’t know that it’ll hold up over time. Hopefully it does, it may be one of the SC cases that either gives us a real victory or totally dooms us to this stuff being allowed.

    • “His decision will not stand.”

      I have every confidence the order will stand through the weekend.

      Congrats to FPC, regardless.

      • Sam I Am,

        “I have every confidence the order will stand through the weekend.”

        I would not count on it.

        • Judges are not particularly fond of working weekends. They were lawyers once, and became judges to get weekends and holidays off. Think some sort of emergency appeal will be filed early Monday morning. But hey…it is Californication.

    • Benitez already issued a stay with it giving the AG time to appeal. The ban is still in place.
      Cali can’t convert yet.

  2. I read it twice. I was looking for any mention of a stay in the order allowing the State to appeal. Did NOT see one. THANK YOU YOUR HONOR!!!!

      • If he’s ruled it unconstitutional, meaning the government does not have the power to enforce it, how in the world is he allowed to then say they are allowed to enforce it? Obviously a higher court could issue a stay since they have higher authority but as far as this judge is concerned its unconstitutional so he shouldn’t be able to issue a stay since in his opinion they don’t have the constitutional power to. Just shows how far the justice system has gone from following the constitution that even the more constitution friendly judges don’t follow the constitution.

        • I don’t recall the details, but there’s a certain legal game in play, in which the issuing of a stay by a judge on his own injunction keeps the case in his court and under his control. When CA appeals this to the Ninth to be heard by a 3-judge panel, if they agree with Benitez (as they already did with the magazine capacity limits) and kick it back, it must go back to Benitez, where he can rule againat the law again.

    • Many people are telling me that the remedial reading program at Trump University is severely underfunded, believe me.

  3. with pee-lousy and her marxist fools in congress pushing the communist ticket and the doddering drooler in the first seat, you can bet money they will scream bloody murder for a stay.

    • Week? How about eternity?

      The personal defensive weapon (as .gov calls AR15’s when ordering them for agents) is not going to be subject to any more bans, or NFA registration and fees, or any other malarkey. The modern day musket is a firearm for the militia, perfectly suited to defend The Homeland, and your home. All this “assault weapon” BS is pejorative attempts at propaganda, to scare the public and spin the story.

      This is the beginning of the end of gun control.

    • Don’t call them “MSRs,” that’s a bogus term that plays into their hands of saying guns are only for sporting purposes. Guns are for that, but the primary protection of the right is for individual self-defense, resistance to tyranny, resistance to attempts at insurrections, and protection of the homeland against foreign invaders.

  4. A lot of you will ask me what does this mean, so here is what you need to know from the Armed Scholar and attorney that works for FPC.

  5. It’s rare that Americans (conservatives) get anybody on their side. Glad there’s at least 1 person in Ca. that has ever read the Constitution! (Even though I no longer live there).

    • What happens next is that the California Attorney General will file a notice of appeal, probably within short order and probably next week. The AG will also file a motion for stay pending appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and there is little doubt but that a stay will be issued that will remain in effect until final judgment. (In point of fact, the Ninth has stayed all other 2A cases pending the outcome of the NY concealed carry case, in anticipation that SCOTUS will issue further guidance on the standard of review in these cases.) Then we wait. Typically the Ninth slow walks these cases, so after briefing and argument (after the stay is lifted), it will be at least a year before a decision is issued.
      At this point, we do not know if the Ninth will take the case up en banc right off the bat, though this would be highly unusual. Instead, the usual procedure is that the case goes to a three judge panel for briefing and argument. After the three judge panel issues its decision, either side can seek review “en banc”, which in the Ninth is an 11 judge panel including the Presiding Judge Sidney Thomas. Unlike Justice Thomas, Judge Thomas is virulently anti-gun. Alternately, either side can immediately petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
      I would anticipate that if plaintiff loses before the three judge panel, a petition for certiorari will be filed. If the state loses, en banc will be sought, since neither the State nor the Ninth Circuit liberal judges want to see any of these cases make it to the Supreme Court. If the later occurs, it will likely be at least three or four years before this case can be presented to the Supreme Court.

      • I pretty much concur with Mark’s analysis.

        A stay pending appeal in this sort of case is all but guaranteed. For those of you hoping for a “freedom week” in the near future for MSR’s in the PRC[alifornia], dream on.

        CTA9 will then sit on the appeal for as long as possible (the Young case is the perfect example here). As I have written before, there’s really not a practical remedy for this (in theory, the Supreme Court could issue a writ of mandamus compelling them to act, but short of a CTA9 judge coming right out and saying that they are deliberately stalling, it’s just not gonna happen).

        About the only thing that might move the needle is if we get a robust opinion from SCOTUS next term on the NYSR&PA case, and that then forces a remand on Young. But even then, look for CTA9 to continue to drag their feet using every trick in the book.

  6. No more lethal then other arms.
    So the Second Ammendment is about distinguishing the lethality of arms. ?

    • No, rather the alleged lethality of the firearm was a part of the ground that the State relied upon for its justification for its regulations. Judge Benitez basically said, “Nonsense.”

      • The lethality of the weapon and the right to be armed is still in question.
        The Second Amendment has no such restrictions.
        If the Judge wins he still won on a ” It ain’t as bad as a ,,,”

  7. fyi
    He was appointed by President George W Bush. Who is President really does matter. It always has.

    • Hold your horses there. The author sought and was granted reconsideration, so this bill will be voted on again if the author can corral enough votes to get it passed.

      • An *additional* tax on ammo?

        {Mr. Rogers voice}

        “Can you say poll tax? I knew you could!”…

        • I agree. While it never seems to get any play, it is relatively clear that a sales tax on *everything* does not infringe on RKBA, nor could it conceivably do so. OTOH, a tax specifically and exclusively applicable to firearms or ammo, etc, is just as clearly an unconstitutional infringement, since if permissible could be increased next week to a 20,000% tax, effectively stopping all purchases.

  8. I read the entire decision from Judge Benitez. Because the AG asked for it, Judge Benitez granted a “Temporary Stay” for 30 days, at which time his Order will take full force and effect.

    FYI A party seeking a stay must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, that the balance of equities tip in his favor, and that a stay is in the public interest. I think the AG will have an uphill battle to satisfy all of these requirements.

    Congratulations to the FPC!

      • Yup, unfortunately. It’s typically a very heavy lift to get a stay of a final injunction pending appeal (essentially, you have to get an temporary injunction against the injunction), but in CTA9 pretty much all you have to say is “but guuuuunz,” and you’ll get a stay.

        My thought exercise is that if CTA9 continues its pattern of stay + tactical delay of ruling on 2A cases, then perhaps a litigant could try a SCOTUS mandamus petition recognizing that such relief is usually impossible, but showing the typical time to decision for other CTA9 cases vs. 2A cases (and vs. cases where, for example, PDT regs/EO’s were struck down as unconstitutional), and that it thus appears that CTA9 is deliberately playing games here. The hope would be that the Court does something on the “Shadow Docket,” such as issue a Show Cause order compelling Judge Thomas to explain why CTA9 isn’t deliberately delaying decisions in 2A cases, and ordering that the stay be lifted if the Court has not ruled by X date.

        While this would be an extreme long shot procedurally, a strong Chief Justice might be able to rally the Justices to push back against a recalcitrant court of appeals. Unfortunately, Roberts is such a squish that I just don’t see that happening.

    • “I think the AG will have an uphill battle to satisfy all of these requirements.”

      In a sane, rational world, yes.

      As Mark N. noted, the 9th ‘circus’ is no such beast…

  9. Whoopie. B-F-D.

    Or more realistically, YAWN… The ruling will go to the entire 9th Circuit, where it will be overturned.

    Then the case will wander its way to SCOTUS, where it may or may not get cert.

    Regardless, this decision is a great big win for out side, which will promptly crash and burn.

    • “Then the case will wander its way to SCOTUS, where it may or may not get cert.”

      The difference this time is, the Court balance is much more “Ever in our favor” now with Coney-Barrett on it… 🙂

      • I’m thinking the Ninth Circuit is trying to “play out the clock” and hope the composition of the Court changes while they slow roll the case.

    • It would be a short-term victory, he’s kinda old…

  10. Everyone here singing praises…

    This man says modern rifles are fine but larger scale weapons are used for military purposes. FUDD shit. This is going nowhere. He essentially signed his retirement check in CA. You want your rights back, CA?

    Take them. See you all in 2024 when they revamp their Guantanamo Bay practices against conservatives.

    • Free Guantanamo bay vacations? Where can I sign up? Sand and sun and room staff that will bring you clean towels and all the water you could ever want without you asking or them ever thinking about gratuity.

        • {Guantanamo Bay, Cuba terrorist prison}

          And an arrow in each and every cell indicating the direction of Mecca! 😉

        • Soccer time in exchange for information on “ghost guns”.

          Trevor Phillips had a point. You don’t torture for information, you torture for fun. Torture someone long enough and they’ll tell you whatever you want to hear.

        • You don’t torture for information, you torture for fun.

          Always seemed to work for me, maybe I was too over enthusiastic…

    • Stunning legal analysis – I’m surprised you haven’t secured a SCOTUS nomination yourself with displays of wisdom such as this!

  11. En banc review with the Supreme Court not doing anything.

    We all already know what is going to happen before it happens.

    • And as usual, we have Shawn, the ‘Pvt. Hudson’ of TTAG… 😉

      “Game over, man! Game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now?!”

      • So this decision will not go en banc, overturned and then appealed to SCOTUS who won’t do anything?

        I’d like to know what you think is going to happen with this case.

        • You’re the same asshat that claimed the “SCOTUS will NEVER grant cert. to a 2A case!”, ‘shawn’.

          And they just granted cert. to another Ny.Pistol carry case!

          All you do in TTAG is piss-and-moan like a little bitch, ‘shawn’… 🙁

        • Your legal acumen astounds me… what law school did you attend/how long have you been practicing!??? As another poster has noted, you presciently predicted that SCOTUS would never take another 2A case… given proclamations like this, why wouldn’t we all agree with your current analysis of the situation?

        • Geoff is the biggest bitch on this site. Well, at e excepting Haz and pretend veteran MaddMaxx.

  12. Benitez wrote this decision in a way that is going to be very difficult for the 9th Circuit to overturn.

    • I have faith the 9th will overturn it, because guns are far too dangerous for the mouth-breathing, sister-fvcking hicks to ever be allowed to own…

    • After reading the opinion again, I have to agree. For CTA9 to overturn it, they are going to have to get around a ton of findings of fact that are based on the weighing of the evidence, assessment of the credibility of witnesses, and determination of how much weight to give expert testimony — which appellate courts typically do not do.

      Appellate courts typically deal only with errors of law. Appeals from findings of fact are successful only when there was insufficient admissible evidence to support the finding. Here, to overcome the district court’s fact findings, CTA9 is going to have to trash a bunch of its own precedents.

      While I suspect they’ll find a way, the district judge’s incredible and exhaustive decision (if you have not read it, I urge you to do so) is going to give the Ninth Circuit fits trying to limbo around all of it. For that reason, I suspect CTA9 will instead just stay the injunction and then try and sit on the appeal for as many years as they can.

      • You mean like the tons of findings in his mag ruling and ammo registration ruling? The 9th will disappear this one like all the other pro-gun rulings, facts be damned, it’s all about the feelz.

      • “For that reason, I suspect CTA9 will instead just stay the injunction and then try and sit on the appeal for as many years as they can.”

        Probably. Something along the lines of “All well and good, but guns are just too dangerous” or the “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” (lack of) argument.

        Assholes.

        Anyways – Does the SCOTUS have until next June (roughly) to decide on cert. for Young-Hawaii?

        • The cert petition on Young will likely be held over until next term, and then held until the NYSR&PA decision comes down. In all likelihood, it will then be remanded for reconsideration in light of the decision in NYSR&PA, unless the decision in that case is on extremely narrow grounds. In that case, they’ll have to decide whether or not to take it.

  13. This means nothing. The AG will appeal to the 9th circus and request an En Banc hearing and we will be right back where we started from.

    • Yeah, but when they do overturn it, it sets up a tasty treat for the SCOTUS to consider for cert….

  14. This judge needs to go ahead and get a notarized memo printed up that he has no suicidal ideations, is of sound mental health, in good spirits, and lacks the mechanical capacity to kill himself with two shots to the back of his head.

  15. Happy to hear but I don’t need to judge to tell me what I already know, that all my firearms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. Will Not Comply.

  16. We should get together a crowdsourced award program, instituted by U.S. civilians to award people who uphold the Constitution and promote Liberty through their actions.

    I would nominate Judge Robert Benitez as the first U.S. Constitution/Liberty award recipient, as well as buy the man a beer given the chance.

    If more judges were even half as forthright and integrous as this man, we’d be in a lot better shape.

  17. Do not count your chickens before they hatch as when it is appealed by the State of California the next higher court may uphold the gun ban and the gun hating Supreme Court will as usual refuse to hear the case. I look for the ban to be upheld in the end. Let us hope this time I am wrong but the corrupt gun hating Supreme Court knows that weapons are a threat to their absolute power over the people.

  18. I am sure this judge knows this will likely be overturned but he rules as he sees right it seems and also sets up scholarship for the SCOTUS and future courts to use to strike down such laws.

  19. Gavin Newsom replied:

    “Today’s decision is a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period,” he said in a statement. “As the son of a judge, I grew up with deep respect for the judicial process and the importance of a judge’s ability to make impartial fact-based rulings, but the fact that this judge compared the AR-15 – a weapon of war that’s used on the battlefield – to a Swiss Army Knife completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this weapon. We’re not backing down from this fight, and we’ll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives.”

    It drives me nuts that people like Newsom get no pushback from completely baseless statements like this.

    AR-15s are NOT a threat to public safety
    AR-15s are NOT weapons of war
    AR 15s are NOT used on the battlefield
    And Californias “common sense” laws clearly do not save lives

    I know I’m preaching to the choir but I hate it when media prints quotes like these from Newsom and never comments that they have no basis in fact.

    • The opinion completely undermined, with findings of fact, Noisome’s comments. It is NOT a weapon of war, it is NOT used n the battlefield (but is appropriate for militia purposes, a use within the scope of the Second Amendment), and there are relatively few people who get shot with a rifle, much less an AR. In short, the Judge concluded that the State had failed to adduce any evidence that this rifle is a threat to public safety, either during the Legislative process or during trial. In fact, the Legislature in passing the restrictions apparently held no fact finding hearings at all. (On the other hand, this is not unusual. All that matters is that guns are bad and need to be eliminated. For example, the Legislature enacted a law banning CCWs from all school campuses without the express permission of the school administrator, without a single incident EVER of a carrier negligently or intentionally misusing a firearm. When two school districts granted blanket permission, the Legislature amended the law to completely ban anyone but LEO from carrying.)

    • If, as Governor Newsom contends, the AR-15 is “a weapon of war” then why the heck are so many civilian police officers in California routinely armed with AR-15’s? Did Governor Newsom just inadvertently compare California to a “battlefield” and to police officers as soldiers that must be armed with “weapons of war?” And, if so, who is the enemy?

      • why the heck are so many civilian police officers in California routinely armed with AR-15’s?

        Every police agency in the country is equipped with some form of AR platform rifle… Guess that makes the entire US a battleground/warzone… And we know who the enemy will soon be, starting with ALL those owners of “pistols with braces” that refuse to register their suddenly illegal SBRs under DOJ/ATFs new definitions… But fear not, they will get to us all eventually…

  20. quote———————AR-15s are NOT a threat to public safety
    AR-15s are NOT weapons of war
    AR 15s are NOT used on the battlefield
    And Californias “common sense” laws clearly do not save lives

    I know I’m preaching to the choir but I hate it when media prints quotes like these from Newsom and never comments that they have no basis in fact.————-quote

    In Vietnam storm troopers kept their M16’s most of the time on semi-auto to conserve ammo and make more hits per round expended, especially at places like Mai Lai and dozens of others like it. In the present days many M16’s have been converted by the military to only fire a 3 round burst. SO YES THE AR15 IS DAMN WELL A WEAPON OF WAR. When it takes only a couple of seconds more to to empty an AR15 and gun down 50 or 60 people in a Florida bar or hundreds at Mai Lai arguing about the difference between the AR15 and the M16 is an obscenity and a play on the semantics only the disingenuous, the insane or a political hack would attempt to use.

    A comprise with the Far Right would be rather than to ban them, instead more thoroughly vet them the same as we do machine guns but since we do not have such a Federal Law the Far Right have no one to blame but themselves when states out of sheer desperation like California take the easy way out and just ban them altogether. Many East Coast States have already put severe restrictions on them and they already have been blessed by the gun hating courts, many who are staffed by Conservative Justices.

    California’s laws are sabotaged by States with lax laws funneling in deadly second hand weapons as well as ghost guns now being used in 40 per cent of crime in California so do not blame their laws when we do not have a comprehensive Federal Law mandating Universal Background Checks, Safe Storage Laws and a permanent ban on ghost guns.

    The Far Right’s credo is “Lets do nothing about the problem so we guarantee we lose everything” It has worked like a charm because they have proven to be their own worst enemies.

    • “SO YES THE AR15 IS DAMN WELL A WEAPON OF WAR.”

      You are stupid.

      Name the military that issues an AR-15, of for that matter, ANY SEMI-AUTO RIFLE to their troops?

      None. Zero. Every last one of them issue select-fire weapons, MACHINE GUNS to their troops.

      Just get out of TTAG, ‘dacian’. You’re too goddamn stupid to participate…

      EDIT –

      ‘dacian’ said – “A comprise with the Far Right would be rather than to ban them, instead more thoroughly vet them the same as we do machine guns…”

      Tell you what – Have them FULLY re-open the machine gun gun registry again, and I will be HAPPY to pay the 200 dollars and convert it to select-fire.

      Think they will agree?

      Hell Fucking No…

      • Geoff, yes, militaries issue semi-automatic rifles based on the AR type platform, often as semi-automatic sniper or designated marksman rifles. The Knights Armament’s SR-25, for example, was adopted as the M110 Semi Automatic Sniper System.

        As I say below, the whole thing is a ruse. The military uses weapons, almost by definition, so almost every type of gun is used by the military. If we’re going to argue on this turf, then why would bolt action rifles be safe? They’ve been “weapons of war” since the 19th century.

        Don’t fall into the trap. Reject the ploy.

      • quote—————Just get out of TTAG, ‘dacian’. You’re too goddamn stupid to participate…————quote

        The Far Right scream incessantly about 2A and they hypocritically try and destroy the 1st Amendment. You either believe in all of the Constitution or none of it. Is this getting too complicated for you???

        quote——————‘dacian’ said – “A comprise with the Far Right would be rather than to ban them, instead more thoroughly vet them the same as we do machine guns…”

        Tell you what – Have them FULLY re-open the machine gun gun registry again, and I will be HAPPY to pay the 200 dollars and convert it to select-fire.—————————quote

        Think they will agree?

        Hell Fucking No…——————quote

        Have your wife explain my post to you it was obviously way over your head , now who is being stupid????

        The point was to save civilian ownership of AR15 rifles instead of banning them by heavily vetting them and no it has nothing to do with converting them to full auto that is not the point and never was in my post. Obviously this is way over your head. Maybe next time I will draw you a picture and word it on the 5th grade level so even you can understand it.

        And by the way genius the full auto registry has never been closed. They even have amnesty periods from time to time where you can turn in or register your great grandfathers machine gun that was never registered. In the past you could even request permission to convert a de-wat back to full auto as several of my friends did just that. I do not know if you can still do it.

        • Uh, no.

          Hughes Amendment closed the registry for non-LE / military / SOT mfgrs, and when the last amnesty (associated with that law) ended, there aren’t supposed to be any more for civvy-legal, existent NFA weapons. Any further amnesty would have to be via Congress changing the Hughes Amendment.

          As far as getting a Form 1 approved to build or retrofit a demilled MG, ain’t happening . . . Look at what happened when someone found a legitimate loophole in the ‘68 GCA, filed a Form 1 to build a MG based on that loophole, **AND THE ATF ISSUED THE STAMP!!!**. Once ATF realized what they had done, they purported to “cancel” the tax stamp, even though there was no reg or provision for “cancelling” issued tax stamps.
          Nevertheless, the courts held the Hughes Amendment applied, so no MG for you.

        • Facts? You want totalk facts? The fact is there is not one single gun control law that has stopped a determined criminal from getting a gun. I challenge you to find one criminal that will state that- ” Well if they had put XYZ law in place I would have never committed a crime”. By Definition, criminals do not obey laws. So any suggestion for a law is not going to stop a criminal. Murder is already illegal. Yet People still committ murder. Punishments for breaking laws curb crime. Laws do not. But Dems seem hell bent on light punishments and early release of hardened crimnals. That is where you should be concerned and put your efforts.

    • The whole “weapon of war” trope is BS from the start.

      Semi-automatic rifles are issued by the military.
      Semi-automatic handguns are issued by the military.
      Semi-automatic shotguns are issued by the military.
      Bolt action rifles are issued by the military.
      Pump action shotguns are issued by the military.

      Until a few years ago, revolvers were issued to pilots. They were or maybe still used by some anti-terrorist units.

      Maybe lever guns aren’t “weapons of war” anymore, but probably 90% or more of the guns out there are in a category used by the military.

      Like “assault weapon”, “weapon of war” is shrill, hyper-emotive language designed to shout people down. And conveniently, if people buy into it, because it applies to everything, eventually everything can be banned under the same rationale.

      So GTFO with that “weapon of war” nonsense.

    • The AR15 is not a problem. It’s a low-hanging fruit.
      Once you realize that everything else falls into place.

    • So, Dacien, you are agreeing with the rest of us that the AR-15 should be discontinued, just sell people the M16 instead, with select-fire intact, folding stock, 30-round mag and 14.5″ barrel? Or are you just a pile of shit playing word games?

    • “In Vietnam storm troopers kept their M16’s most of the time on semi-auto to conserve ammo and make more hits per round expended, especially at places like Mai Lai and dozens of others like it. In the present days many M16’s have been converted by the military to only fire a 3 round burst. SO YES THE AR15 IS DAMN WELL A WEAPON OF WAR. When it takes only a couple of seconds more to to empty an AR15 and gun down 50 or 60 people in a Florida bar or hundreds at Mai Lai arguing about the difference between the AR15 and the M16 is an obscenity and a play on the semantics only the disingenuous, the insane or a political hack would attempt to use.”

      There isn’t much (if anything) that can’t be called “a weapon of war”. Even a 100 year old Single Action Army six shot revolver in 45 long colt. What they used to call a Colt Peacemaker. But then, spears are weapons of war too. You can call it that but all it translates to is fear mongering for the ignorant.

    • In Vietnam storm troopers…?

      I must have missed those guys… In the three years plus that I was there I never saw a single “Storm Trooper” but you apparently have the 411 on those guys so where exactly did YOU run into groups of designated “Storm Troopers” in Vietnam…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here