AR-15 M16 assault rifle range target
Previous Post
Next Post

Last year, Federal District Court Judge Roger Benitez ruled that California’s “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional in Miller v. Bonta. Benitez applied the Heller decision’s ruling to his decision in the case. He then refused a request to stay his order while the case was appealed by the state to the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. A Ninth Circuit panel, naturally, issued a stay while they considered the case.

That was then. We now live in a post-Bruen world.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court vacated a ruling in a similar case — Bianchi v. Frosh — in which the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban using the now repudiated two-step interest balancing approach that Bruen eviscerated.

Today, the Firearms Policy Coalition filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit asking the court to lift its stay of Judge Benitez’s ruling, arguing that the Court can’t reasonably overturn Judge Benitez’s ruling on the merits given the new legal landscape.

The FPC’s motion argues that the basis for granting the stay no longer exists . . .

In the end, Appellants’ principal, and necessary, argument supporting their request for a stay was their claim that they were likely to succeed on the merits on appeal. That claim no longer has even the slightest merit post-Bruen. Indeed, Bruen establishes quite the opposite: Appellants have completely failed to establish the required historical and textual support for their restrictions on bearing modern rifles in common use for lawful purposes, and both the facts and the law in this case more readily support summary affirmance than they do a stay. Because appellants are not even remotely “likely” to succeed on the merits, the stay pending appeal should be lifted immediately.

If the motion is granted removing the stay, Benitez’s ruling would go into effect, striking down (for now) California’s “assault weapons” ban and putting the Golden State on the same footing with forty-some other states in the nation. You know, all those free states where citizens can buy a normally-equipped semi-automatic rifle if they choose.

California could still try to pursue an appeal of the ruling with the Ninth Circuit, but the state’s chances of prevailing are now heavily stacked against them.

As for the hysterics that are sure to come from just about everyone in California government from Governor Newsom on down, the FPC motion notes . . .

The ubiquity of these types of firearms throughout the country demonstrates that there will be no sudden catastrophe in California once the stay is lifted. Any speculation or conjecture about the “harm” that may result from enforcing constitutionally protected fundamental rights is just that—speculation and conjecture—and cannot justify a stay of a properly entered judgment where there is no likelihood of success on the merits.

Watch this space.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Well. Maybe. Possibly. After all in the context of Bruen historical requirement, fire arms were not historically required to be registered nor was permission or license needed to purchase or make required for the individual.

      • Legally removing the registry is do-able, post- ‘Bruen’, as no such critter existed in the 1700s, and was re-affirmed in the early 1940s as WW2 was winding up.

        A ‘shadow registry’ will always exist, because the Leftist Scum ™ will never willingly destroy those records. If ordered to do so, a USB flash drive somewhere will have the data, you can count on it…

        • You forgot your flash drive, you forgot your flash drive, you forgot your flash drive. Clickety clack clickety clack

    • Very low. Although no permit or license is required to purchase a firearm, California still has the right to conduct its own background check to determine whether the transferee is eligible to possess firearms. California does so by conducting its own background check in addition to running the name through NCIS based on information contained in the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS). It just keeps those forms. Now the state will claim that this is not a “registry” (and in fact the statute uses different wording), but in fact it is an electronically searchable database and as such is a registry no matter what the State decides to call it. There are issues with the system though, that the DOJ has spent millions (of gun buyer’s money) trying to fix, which is basically that the system does not update at all. So if you move, it still has you at the old address until you buy a new firearm, which some people have found out when unsuccessfully trying to buy ammo–they weren’t in the system at their current address. Further, if you sell a firearm through an FFL, the new owner is added to the system but the seller’s ownership is not deleted, even if the seller files a notice of transfer with the DOJ. And then of course, the DOJ made all of that info available to all comers for a couple of days earlier this week.

  1. I think it’s unlikely that the stay will be vacated but it will be interesting to see the full ruling when it actually comes down.

    • I agree. Even if the elements of lifting the stay are met, the court will not vacate the stay until its final ruling because it doesn’t want to allow California gun owners to be able to buy “assault weapons” until the underlying issue as to the constitutionality of the statute is fully adjudicated. I will be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong.

  2. Anyone think California will not bring up the tired “Analagous, dangerous, unusual” argument?

  3. Oh, the contortions the Ninth Circuit will have to go through to get around this will be epic.

    Remember, procedurally the district court has held that Cailifornia failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy even intermediate scrutiny — a fact finding that was going to be very tough for the court to reverse on appeal. (In most 2A test cases from NY, CA, etc., usually the procedural posture is that the district court dismisses the suit or grants summary judgment against the plaintiff.)

    Now, with nothing in the appellate record that even remotely satisfies the Bruen test (again, remember that this case is on appeal, so they can’t introduce new evidence), the case should be a slam dunk. But of course that means CTA9 will probably just sit on it as long as they can. (Look at how long Young has been waiting for justice.)

    Look for FPC to mandamus the Ninth Circuit to SCOTUS over either the refusal to vacate the stay, or more likely the failure to even rule on it.

      • they have two options: lift the stupid stay, letting Bruen stand with respect to the black and ugly guns, or send another 2A case to Judge Thomas. I can’t se a third pathway.

      • jwm,

        Yes. Yes, I do. At this point, their strategy will be delay, obfuscate, create a cloud of bulls***, and try to run the clock out. After all, when they “win big” in November, they can pack the court, amirite??

        They will stop trying to circumvent Bruen when Satan wears ice skates.

    • Can the 9th Circuit simply declare that the SC ruled in error, and refuse to apply “Bruen”?

      The delay tactic has been a most effective gun control measure. There being no SC procedure, nor a constitutional mandate setting time periods beyond which lower courts cannot delay, can the SC compel a lower court to act on a case? What are the provisions for plaintiff to sue a court for unreasonable delay?

      • Sam,

        No, they can’t. A SCOTUS ruling is the “law of the land”. What they CAN (and WILL) do is . . . “interpret” Bruen. “Apply” the Bruen test . . . in a way that is unrecognizable. Create “exceptions”. The idiot KKKalifornia AG (the ‘estimable’ Rob Bonta) has ALREADY issued “guidance” that new standards for KKKalifornia, supposedly “complying” with Bruen could/should include such f***tardery as required personal interviews, psychological examinations, and a requirement for multiple “character references” . . . from references that would have to ALSO come testify.

        NY is playing the same game, on a slightly different field. Thomas’ opinion seemed to allow for a state to restrict carry in “certain areas” – and the vile, botoxed, unelected troll, Kathy Hochul, has already made it clear that EVERYWHERE is going to be a “senstive area”. And they haven’t even fully begun the game playing.

        It will be a remarkable display of gymnastic talent, as KKKalifornia’s AG, DAs, et al. literally climb up their own backsides to avoid complying with Bruen. Stock up on popcorn.

        • “No, they can’t. A SCOTUS ruling is the “law of the land”.”

          Regards 2A, “law of the land” isn’t, until the lower courts stop trying to evade. Determining whether the lower court reviews of prior lower court decisions are decided as being IAW, “Bruen” is a legal matter, that must again pushed through the appellate courts, and again to the SC.

          The lower courts successfully evaded Heller/McDonald. The courts applied a structured review, but what is the means to stop the lower courts from having an opinion that even after removing the structured review, the outcome is constitutional?

          I think the anti-gun states and courts would be remiss if they default to new restrictions supposedly available through “Bruen”, rather than make one more run at simply declaring themselves in compliance, saving “Bruen” obsfucation for further delaying action after the SC rules that under “Bruen”, the states insistence on unconstitutional violations being in compliance even after removing structured review.

  4. I’m not a big fan of the AR. But if it becomes legal to own here in CA I’ll buy one just as a middle finger to Newsom and the rest of the fascist scum.

    • JWM, I’m not an AR fanboy either, but I bought mine just to flip off the Irish mafia that controls Massivetwoshits. And I’m glad I did.

      • And I never thought I’d take the AR plunge but here we are Ralph & jwm! Going on 3 years. My old buddy is getting constitutional carry tomorrow in Indiana. Already had a CCL. Things change!

      • one item more than likely, bi a large margin, to NOT decrease in value. Plus now you HAVE one. And there is no real reason to not figure out ow it works.

        I am not keen on them either, I find them VERY uncomfortable. but had I the opportunity present now, l would not hesistae a nanosecond. The very fact the state wants to banigh them tells me I SHOULD get one just tp put the thumb in their faces.

        • Not liking a single rifle makes one a fudd, nathan? Very judgemental. Must be the life of the party.

        • jwm,

          Hey, I don’t much care for the 5.56 poodleshooter – but I’ve got two in 5.56, and one in .300Blackout (a MUCH superior cartridge, IMHO). Not having a preference for a particular rifle/platform is hardly Fudd territory . . . except, perhaps, to some rather insecure people who aren’t comfortable making independent, informed choices about their selection of firearms.

          Lots of options out there, prefering something more suitable to your personal use is called, by intelligent folks, “good decision making”. Personally kinda fond of the FN SCAR (or even the FN FAL) except for the crappy trigger (which can be replaced or improved), but I guess Nathan is welcome to his issues.

    • ARs are good. They’re just kinda basic. Maybe this makes me a hipster, but I’d much rather take something with more soul and history to the range.

  5. aaaaaaand again, more than the NRA has done in decades.

    A for effort at least. Doubtful it will go anywhere in the SROC.

    • The NRA has performed lots of legal actions, and at great expense ($4M per month to external council Bill Brewer III in their last report). Unfortunately, they have all been to delay Wayne and his cronies being sent to prison for their misdeeds, and not on defending/expanding 2A rights.

        • Dude,

          Many of us ARE “draining the swamp” in the NRA, in the most effective possible way – stop giving them money. I fortunately elected not to go for “Life Member” status, so when Wayne the Pimp started his antics, I cancelled my membership, and will NOT return until they clean house. There are better, leaner, cleaner organizations out there (SAF, GOA, and others) to do our lobbying and litigation . . . and not spend all our membership money on fancy suits and his side piece and her apartment. If the NRA went back to its roots, and emphasized safety and skills training, and got rid of Wayne the Pimp, I’d rejoin in a hearbeat. Until then, let some other suckers fund Wayne’s “lifestyle”.

  6. Although it’s pretty far from the specific subject of Bruen, I think the optimum target for a suit would be a “Ghost Gun” law – trendy BS with zero historical precedent whatsoever.

    • A lot of gun laws with zero historical precedent whatsoever are good possibilities for successful demise under Bruen.

    • The 1960’s era “Saturday Night Special” bans used wacky standards like “Melt Laws” to outlaw Zinc alloy cheap pocket pistols like the Lorcin, Phoenix, Raven, and others of that ilk. Distributor price on them in the mid-1980s was $35 dollars each at the gun store I worked at the time.

      Serial numbers on guns didn’t *legally* have to exist until after the 1968 Gun Control Act.

      Get a ‘Ghost Gun’ ban to Thomas, and I bet he will be happy to strike it, since Americans have been home-building guns with no serial numbers since the boats hit the eastern coast.

      Universal gun registry (background checks) are flat out unconstitutional by the standard ‘Bruen’ set.

      I wonder if LKB could comment on how he believes the 2A will be treated in constitutional law classes in law schools across the land… 🙂

      • I was trying to think of low-hanging fruit (laws that, on their face, have zero possibility of meeting the Bruen standard and could be thrown out with minimal new litigation).

        A sharp and well-funded team who could prove UBCs were being used to create a registry might have a chance, but that would be a whole new case (after a helluva investigation). The checks themselves would seem to be one of the more difficult targets because many opponents of gun control in general wouldn’t want to be portrayed as helping felons, illegals, etc.

      • Depends on the professor. My guess is that most of them will do what they have historically done: ignore the Second Amendment entirely.

        FYI, I’m working on an article for TTAG on the legal articles in the 1980’s that changed the landscape and made Second Amendment scholarship “respectable” in legal circles. It will include some quotes from my post-Bruen decision interview of Sanford Levinson, a UT Law constitutional scholar whose 1989 Yale Law Review article “The Embarrassing Second Amendment,” was the one that pretty much legitimized talking about the 2A issues that have now been recognized as the law. (E.g., Levinson’s article forced Lawrence Tribe to change his constitutional law casebook to acknowledge that the Second Amendment *could* be seriously argued to protect an individual right.)

        Levinson (who I had as a law professor almost 40 years ago) had credibility because not only is he regarded as one of the leading constitutional theorists in the country, he is very left wing and thus nobody could accuse him of being a shill for the NRA or GOP. (I disagree with Levinson on most issues, but he is unquestionably brilliant and intellectually honest to a fault.)

        • Bingo. Now it is true that I went to law school decades ago, but the 2A wasn’t addressed, mostly standards of review, First Amendment and Fifth Amendment stuff.

    • Self/personal manufacture of firearms is a 300+ year tradition in this part of the world. How’s that for history and tradition? It should be an easy one under Bruen. The requirement that some states place for unique serial and other info to conform to their infringing standards have no basis in history in this country either. They just have a conniption when they can’t control something.

  7. cue the many more false flag operations
    a la buffalo and uvalde
    which are already on their way
    the left needs more fodder to gin up support
    for their “this supreme court is out of control” argument
    and packing it with rubber stamps
    for their marxist leninist agenda

  8. There should be a cascading effect throughout all the blue states with regards to a whole array of gun control issues. The biggest problem however is the Red Flag Component of the most recent bill signed by Biden. That has to be challenged at the level of the Supreme Court because it does not allow for due process. In blue states in particular you can assume there will be frivolous cases that are given attention when they should be denied. If they can Red Flag you for firearms can they do the same for cars if you get a speeding ticket and claim you are a potential hazard to other people? This thing could get out of control in other areas as well.

    • “The biggest problem however is the Red Flag Component….That has to be challenged at the level of the Supreme Court…”

      Red Flag laws weren’t invented last month. Are there any Red Flag challenges in the pipeline? If not, why not.

  9. unfortunate. I wanted Californians to see, hear, and smell the liberalism they have so proudly been voting for all these years.

  10. Man, I hope I am wrong about all this. They openly defied Heller. I think they’ll find a way to uphold Kalifornia’s laws. They don’t want you to own a bolt action 22 and they believe in the righteousness of their cause.

    • ” They openly defied Heller.”

      Look what happened legally in Chicago after ‘Heller’, and especially after the ‘McDonald’ decision.

      They tried playing all kinds of games, and got bitch-slapped for their efforts.

      Games like bullshit gun-free zones, refusing to issue permits to construct gun ranges and gun stores, etc, etc.

      Look to Chicago today, to see California in the future…

  11. “They openly defied Heller. I think they’ll find a way to uphold Kalifornia’s laws.”

    Easy. Just release a ruling that the courts reviewed “Bruen”, and conclude that appeals are IAW “Bruen”. More Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, with accompanying delay. States have deep pockets. 2A defender organizations do not. States can wear down the opposition.

    • Perhaps. But now that Bruen is the law, officials acting under color of state law to deprive individuals of what SCOTUS has now declared an individual right (in the case of public carry, quite unambiguously) now face personal liability for sec. 1983 claims. Note the motion FPC just filed in one of its NYC cases for an injunction that raises this precise issue.

      The antis will certainly get creative, as they are convinced they are on the side of the angels. But when they start facing personal liability, they may decide that virtue signaling isn’t fun any more.

      At any event, the whole landscape has changed in a fashion that even I dared not hope for. The next few months are going to be interesting, especially if SCOTUS fires up the shadow docket to impose some discipline on recalcitrant lower courts . . . which I bet Thomas is willing to do.

      • “now face personal liability for sec. 1983 claims.”

        Sec. 1983 demands are frequent here. How often are 1983 cases filed? How often do government personnel actually get personally charged, and convicted. Which activities are seeing the most suites for Sec. 1983 suits?

        “…especially if SCOTUS fires up the shadow docket to impose some discipline on recalcitrant lower courts…”

        Expanding on this would be a good subject for an article on TTAG (and likely elsewhere)>

    • Perhaps. But now that Bruen is the law, officials acting under color of state law to deprive individuals of what SCOTUS has now declared an individual right (in the case of public carry, quite unambiguously) now face personal liability for sec. 1983 claims. Note the motion FPC just filed in one of its NYC cases for an injunction that raises this precise issue.

      The antis will certainly get creative, as they are convinced they are on the side of the angels. But when they start facing personal liability, they may decide that virtue signaling isn’t fun any more.

      At any event, the whole landscape has changed in a fashion that even I dared not hope for. The next few months are going to be interesting, especially if SCOTUS fires up the shadow docket to impose some discipline on recalcitrant lower courts . . . which I bet Thomas is willing to do. We’ll see.

      • Chicago tried to get cute after ‘McDonald’ by refusing to issue permits for gun ranges and gun stores.

        That may be a model for how they may proceed…

  12. When SCOTUS vacates the lower courts ruling, isn’t that saying to the lower court to change their decision or SCOTUS will hear it again and then over turn them!

    I feel like it is a parent telling their child, you were wrong now do the right thing or I will punish you.

    • No. All it says is that we changed the rules, so reconsider your case under the new standard. Now some of the cases, like Young v. Hawaii (where Hawaii has denied permits to any and all civilian applicants for more than 20 years) will be slam dunk reversals, others will be more difficult.

  13. .
    Hopefully during our illustrious most honored and benevolent presidents second term he can eliminate the outdated Constitution of the United States and draft one which is more relevant in today’s world.
    We Need Order not freedom.
    30 rounds to hunt deer?, come on man.

  14. I’m hearing an awful lot of people talking about “assault weapons” but I still can’t find ANYONE that can explain just what that actually means. People are ‘assaulted’ with all kinds of things (to include various body parts).

    How can ANYONE make ANY kind of law to ban things that NO ONE knows ANYTHING about?

    It’s ALL just guesswork.

    • The Clinton AWB defined them as the following:

      Any semi automatic rifle that can accept detachable magazines and has two of the following: Pistol grip, folding or telescoping buttstock, barrel shroud, muzzle brake, bayonet lug, grenade launcher. The Clinton ban also came with magazine capacity restrictions.

      You can see the influence in Clinton era imports. The AKs came with those crappy thumbhole stocks, barrel threads ground down, bayonet lug ground off, and mag wells changed to only accept single stack magazines.

      This is why a wood stocked Ruger Mini 14 (without a muzzle brake) or an SKS (even if you do the removable mag modification) are not “assault rifles”.

      Terms like “military grade” and “high powered” and “no one needs” and “just look at it and you can tell it’s not for civilians” are thrown out to confuse people. A 5.56 is just as powerful shot out of a Mini 14 as it is an AR. A 7.62×39 is just as powerful shot out of an SKS as an AK. But it was easier to ban the scary looking rifles that were just starting to gain popularity than it was to ban something that looks like your dad’s hunting rifle.

      I think that cat’s been let out of the bag. The AR is now the most popular rifle in America and more people than ever are aware of the fact that it’s not in fact the same as an M16

    • The term “assault weapons” or “assault rifle” or “weapons of war” applied for civilian intended semi-auto firearms are invented terms applications of the anti-gun/gun-control industry intended to invoke an emotional fear response in the general public for purposes of political exploitation and gain.

      When a knife or other object or hands and feet are used to assault and harm and kill, you don’t see the anti-gun/gun-control industry calling them, for example, ‘assault knife’ even though the actions of stabbing someone with a knife repeatedly are akin to a semi-auto activity like semi-auto civilian firearms use (e.g. pull knife back = bolt going back, thrust/plunge knife forward = bolt going forward).

      Speaking of knives … a few days ago there was what could have possibly turned into a ‘mass knifing’ type incident stopped on a subway by a concealed carrier who used his firearm for self-defense against the attacker. He did not get charged with the self-defense shooting but he did get a gun charge because he was carrying concealed on the subway >

      Its a good thing he was carrying that day, he was able to save his life from serious harm or death and maybe the lives of others had the bad guy decided to go after others too. Its a shame though, this guy did ‘disobey’ the law about carrying on the subway but he knows the truth, and as demonstrated in his incident, that simply because its a ‘gun free’ type area it does not mean violence at the hands of a violent person intent upon violence can not happen with either guns in the hands of the criminal or violent mentally ill person unstable person (criminals and violent mentally ill don’t obey such laws anyway) or by their use of other objects from knives to blunt objects to hand/feet or other ‘personal’ weapons. So yes, our defender here did ‘break the law’, that law created by a legislature, but he did not break the natural and inherent law-of-the-land of the second amendment to a right to self-defense.

      In 2021 there were an average of 1,323 knife attacks daily upon innocent law abiding victims, nation wide (about ~483,000 for the year). Less than 2% (it varied in time of year between less then 1% to a little less than 2% but overall less than 2%) of the perpetrators were caught, about 1/3 of those caught were convicted of specifically the knife use or assault (of some type, e.g. assault instead of a specific ‘weapon’ type charge) and the others were pleaded down to assault or dismissed after a ‘diversion’ type period (e.g. community service) or were simply parole violated and sent back to prison. 63% of the perpetrators were young black males less then 25 years of age, 15% of the perpetrators were young black females less than 25 years of age, the rest were a mixture of males and females that were black or white or Asian or Hispanic over age 25 or older.

      The most common attack method was a straight stab with the right hand accompanied by a clothing grab to control the victim, this happened in about 63% of attacks.

      Most knife attack assault perpetrators are not caught, and on average will have ~25 (+/- a little) victims a month they either actually attack or plan to attack but did not for some reason. Knives are used in knife attack assaults to murder more people every year than rifles do, and injure more every year than all the gun accidents and ‘mass shooting’ have done in almost 30 years, yet there is no “assault knife” anti-gun/gun-control industry designation applied to a knife.

      • correction:

        “the rest were a mixture of males and females that were black or white or Asian or Hispanic over age 25 or older. ”

        should have been…

        the rest were a mixture of males and females that were black or white or Asian or Hispanic age 25 or older.

    • The easiest and most concise answer is this: An “assault weapon” (which includes rifles, pistols and shotguns) is whatever a particular State Legislature says it is, no more no less. Consequently, the definition changes depending on what state you are in.

  15. “I’m hearing an awful lot of people talking about “assault weapons” but I still can’t find ANYONE that can explain just what that actually means.”

    Oh yes, quite easily, old boy.

    “Assault weapon” has two sub categories: “assault rifle”, and “semi-automatic firearm”.

    “Assault rifle was defined by Senator Diane Feinstein as a rifle with “a thingy in the back that goes up, and a large clipazine that can shoot a thousand rounds per minute.”

    “Assault weapon” is any auto-loading firearm, including hand guns.

    If there is confusion, or doubt, about whether a firearm is a rifle or pistol, the “Assault Weapon” covers both types.

    There is a less precise definition sometimes bandied about: “scary”, which applies to both “assault rifles” and “assault weapons”.

    Any other object used to “assault” a person is identified by its generic label: knife; screwdriver; power drill; poison; wife’s bad cooking; etc.

  16. The real question is WHY the flock would anybody WANT a bloody assault Rifle ?? Who exactly are they going to assault with it? Assault and Multishot Repeating Semi-Automatic rifles have ONLY one purpose -the killing of human beings who are likely or potentially shooting back .

    Nobody actually NEEDS for any legitimate puropose more the an a FIVE SHOT BOLT ACTION Rifle of a suitable calibre and certainly no compentent hunter If they do then they are neither compentent OR a hunter.

    In the past days of the PROFESSIONAL ‘BIG GAME’ Hunter. The most they used was a five shot bolt action ‘of a suitable calibre’ [ most likely a .5” EXPRESS] and even then most relied on a DOUBLE BARREL. They ‘tracked and stalked’ their often deadly and dangerous game to within a ‘CERTAIN KILL’ range either onn their own or with a suitable trained back up tracker/guide.

    And yes I know that there ARE still purist in the USA who still do it that way but I bet they DO NOT carry a bloody semi-auto and think thatvthose that do are merely dangerous Children playing games

    • I know you won’t see this because you don’t actually look at responses. It’s a shame because you could learn something if you stuck around.

      There are several nuisance animals that require a semi automatic rifle. Hogs, coyotes, prairie dogs, etc. These animals often run in packs or are skittish. They tear up farms and sometimes threaten people. Hogs in particular here in Texas don’t require a permit to hunt and the state estimates that they breed so quickly it’d take killing 2/3rds of the population EVERY year just to keep the current numbers from expanding. We’re not talking about taking a deer with a humane well placed shot. We’re talking teams on the ground with semi automatic rifles killing 50-100 pig groups.

      Your claim that there is no hunting purpose for an AR is the kind of ignorance born of someone who opens a door, shouts his opinion, then runs away before anyone can respond. You are a fool

    • You don’t carry a bloody semi-auto because you’re a bloody serf. I’d expect a subject like you to at least have the common decency to address those of us who are willing to take responsibility for our own lives – your natural superiors – as “my lord”.

    • And, as usual Albert the Subject, you would be full of shite to your bloody eyeballs, you ignorant Limey tw*t. AR platform rifles have become one of the most common, if not THE most common, rifle of choice in many areas for control of varmints/predators including, but not limited to, wild or feral pigs, coyotes, prairie dogs, and others. I personally know a guy who owned a sheep station in Aust. who used ARs for controlling the local infestation of rabbits. SO, once again, you are both wrong, and stupid. Must be an attribute of being a subject. Go ask your queen for a new set of ignorant opinions – the current issue sucks out loud.

      • The shame of Albert is that he’s literally incapable of even listening to a rebuttal. In his mind, there is only one kind of hunting. To take a single animal with a single shot. He probably thinks that having 5 shots in a bolt gun is generous. He’ll never know about any other kind of hunting, no matter how much you tell him.

        Utah (where I lived last) has such a coyote problem that the state will pay you $50 for a left ear and lower jaw for each one you kill. The animals have fantastic hearing and are difficult to get close to. The AR is PERFECT for hunting them because coyotes are relatively small and making quick follow up shots at distance is easy with an AR. Hunting coyotes isn’t for trophies or food. It’s to protect livestock and as a supplemental source of income for many.

        But to Albert, there is only English laws, English animals, and the one type of hunting. Nothing in this world exists outside his senile old mind.

    • Once again, Albert, perhaps you would enlighten on on your august qualification to so stridently opine on all things related to guns. (I noticed you declined to do so in response to my challenge on another thread.)

      Do you have any training with the use of AR-platform weapons? (And to anticipate your responsive question, yes I have — the same TCLOSE course required of Texas law enforcement. And of course many, many people here like JWT have forgotten more about this subject than I will ever know.)

      Do you have *any* experience with any semi-automatic intermediate or large caliber rifles (e.g., AR, AK, L1A1, FAL, SKS, etc.). Heck, I’d make a wager that you’ve never even held one.

      Stand and deliver, or admit that you’re just talking out of your arse.

      • Aaaaaand, once again, by his deliberate silence, Albert the Poseur reveals that his knowledge of firearms is probably about the same as the politicians who define assault weapons as having the “shoulder thing that goes up” or think that a suppressor makes a center fire weapon silent.

        Albert is, of course, a bad joke, but he serves as a useful reminder of the typical mindset of the antis. More often than not, they know nothing of the subject matter beyond what they just instinctively “know” must be true (“more guns = more crime,” “no one needs more than x shots,” “AR’s are ‘weapons of war,’” etc.). Yet we are supposed to not only take them seriously, but defer to their ignorance.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here