7th Circuit AR15 "not protected"

[556USER]

How in a post Bruen world can they justify that decision?

wasn't the term something like 'in common use'?

The justices on that court know full well that their ruling does not comply with Bruen. They are non partial people who hate the Bruen decision and do not want to go on record as going against those who may someday appoint them to a higher court. They dream of being appointed to SCOTUS someday so they can throw the entire second amendment into the trash. The courts were intended to strictly follow the law but they are generally political. The country is crumbling.

 

[Devils Paintbrush]

The judges in the case seem to think you can convert an AR-15 into a killing machine with just a part change.

There are a lot of firearm owners that don't have the mechanical or technical skills to convert an AR-15 into a full auto.

Another case of the law trying to protect you from yourself.
Law abiding citizens know that converting an AR into a full auto is illegal, so they don't do it...get it law abiding.
Criminals know it is illegal to have a firearm if they are felons. They know that it is illegal to rob someone with a firearm, but they do it anyway.

So what is another law that restricts law abiding citizens going to achieve...nothing. Other than restrict me from owning something that is only a threat to paper.

This is another emotional decision made by individuals that know nothing about firearms and think we need to be protected from ourselves.
That is not what this nation was founded on. We have freedom to decide for a reason, I wish they would adjudicate with that in mind.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Here are the facts:

Judge Easterbrook is a bitter old man child who has been denied a spot on SCOTUS in the past.

Easterbrook is a foaming at the mouth anti-gun judge. He's also a republican.

Frank Easterbrook was appointed to the bench by none other than Ronald Reagan. He's been on that court for a very long time.

Easterbrook is the person who wrote the decision denying Otis McDonald a gun permit in McDonald v Chicago in 2008. Easterbrook's decision was later overturned by SCOTUS in the landmark decision. In his decision Easterbrook voted to uphold Chicago's essentially no way to purchase, get licensed or carry. A few years later he would go on to write the Highland Park decision. This is the first take on the AWB that made it to SCOTUS. In 2020 when SCOTUS denied cert on specific gun cases, one of the cases was this one. In a blistering note, SCOTUS said to never use the highland park decision anywhere in any legal document because it was not only wrong but monumentally and factually wrong.

Despite that Easterbrook took another bite at the apple and dusted off his Highland park decision and once again used it to defend the IL AWB.

Unless SCOTUS steps in and helps these judges they are going to continue to write the same interest balancing blathering nonsense that they did several years ago. SCOTUS is essentially allowing these lower court judges the ability to sh*t all over their work at the expense of the American people.

 

[pastera]

Instead of the tired argument that they aren’t, we should embrace it.

The AR-15 was invented as a select fire rifle. Armalite never made a semi-only version. When the military adopted it with the designation M-16, the first rifles in service were marked AR-15… auto selector switch and all.

Be proud of the history. “Hell yeah it’s a military rifle. That’s exactly why it’s protected by 2A, especially if it’s also a machine gun!”

In the guard my assigned rifle was built on an AR-15 lower - at the time I thought it odd but as I learned the history of M16s, I learned that it was just another case of the guard getting the oldest, shittiest equipment known to man.

 

[pastera]

Full auto is in common use. Change my mind.

176,000 transferable machine guns.
A reading of Caetano would put this right at the threshold where the court accepted approximately 200,000 was enough to show common use.

I don't believe NFA taxes will be killed but the registry will likely be opened IF we can keep SCOTUS.

 

[Joeldiaz]

IF we can keep SCOTUS.

not gonna happen, unfortunately. Dems are gonna win the next election and replace Alito and Thomas, who are both on death’s doorstep.

 

[pastera]

The judges in the case seem to think you can convert an AR-15 into a killing machine with just a part change.

There are a lot of firearm owners that don't have the mechanical or technical skills to convert an AR-15 into a full auto.

Another case of the law trying to protect you from yourself.
Law abiding citizens know that converting an AR into a full auto is illegal, so they don't do it...get it law abiding.
Criminals know it is illegal to have a firearm if they are felons. They know that it is illegal to rob someone with a firearm, but they do it anyway.

So what is another law that restricts law abiding citizens going to achieve...nothing. Other than restrict me from owning something that is only a threat to paper.

This is another emotional decision made by individuals that know nothing about firearms and think we need to be protected from ourselves.
That is not what this nation was founded on. We have freedom to decide for a reason, I wish they would adjudicate with that in mind.

It's a lot easier today since one can just use other people's work and instructions.
A full auto BCG and 20 minutes on a 3d printer will get you there.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

United States v. Miller: Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.

supreme.justia.com

I.E., machine guns are protected; "sporting rifles" aren't.

Whatever Miller "said," about militia was mooted by Heller's holding that the militia clause was "prefatory" and effectively of no legal force. Heller did leave open the possibility of banning "weapons that are most useful in military service."

Depending on how you count, there are somewhere around 194 countries in the world. Not all of them have militaries, but I don't know any who do have ground troops and equip them with semi-automatic rifles or carbines. Even the Vatican has automatic weapons in its arsenal. But as Earl Landgrebe once said, "Don't confuse me with the facts. I've got a closed mind."

 

[Varmint]

Instead of the tired argument that they aren’t, we should embrace it.

The AR-15 was invented as a select fire rifle. Armalite never made a semi-only version. When the military adopted it with the designation M-16, the first rifles in service were marked AR-15… auto selector switch and all.

Be proud of the history. “Hell yeah it’s a military rifle. That’s exactly why it’s protected by 2A, especially if it’s also a machine gun!”

I came a little in my pants.

 

[Woodsloafer]

not gonna happen, unfortunately. Dems are gonna win the next election and replace Alito and Thomas, who are both on death’s doorstep.

Yep, unfortunately. The next presidential election will probably be one of the most important for 2nd Amendment rights given the age of these two. Worst case scenario is that our country could be radically changed in the next 10 years with respect to gun ownership.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Yep, unfortunately. The next presidential election will probably be one of the most important for 2nd Amendment rights given the age of these two. Worst case scenario is that our country could be radically changed in the next 10 years with respect to gun ownership.

Honestly I think that’s part of the reason SCOTUS is granting certiorari to so many gun related cases now in recent years (NYSRPA v. Bruen, US v. Rahimi, NRA v. Vullo, Garland v. Cargill, etc). They know that a future anti-2A SCOTUS is going to try to undo as much of their work as possible, so they’re going to make it as hard as possible for them to do that before they inevitably hand the reins back over to the democrats.

 

[Nightshift]

Honestly I think that’s part of the reason SCOTUS is granting certiorari to so many gun related cases now in recent years (NYSRPA v. Bruen, US v. Rahimi, NRA v. Vullo, Garland v. Cargill, etc). They know that a future anti-2A SCOTUS is going to try to undo as much of their work as possible, so they’re going to make it as hard as possible for them to do that before they inevitably hand the reins back over to the democrats.

They’d bet move a little faster!

 

[Dench]

In the guard my assigned rifle was built on an AR-15 lower - at the time I thought it odd but as I learned the history of M16s, I learned that it was just another case of the guard getting the oldest, shittiest equipment known to man.

what year was this

 

[Nightshift]

Honestly I think that’s part of the reason SCOTUS is granting certiorari to so many gun related cases now in recent years (NYSRPA v. Bruen, US v. Rahimi, NRA v. Vullo, Garland v. Cargill, etc). They know that a future anti-2A SCOTUS is going to try to undo as much of their work as possible, so they’re going to make it as hard as possible for them to do that before they inevitably hand the reins back over to the democrats.

 

[pastera]

Late 8

what year was this

Late 80's early 90's
Was swapped out for a "new" rifle after a couple of years.

 

[Dench]

Late 8
Late 80's early 90's
Was swapped out for a "new" rifle after a couple of years.

I had a brand new FN M16A4 when I entered the guard in the early 00's

 

[pastera]

I had a brand new FN M16A4 when I entered the guard in the early 00's

Massive shift in how the guard was perceived after the first gulf War.
I was also aviation so if I was actually using my rifle shit had gone to shit already.

 

[Uzi2]

How in a post Bruen world can they justify that decision?

wasn't the term something like 'in common use'?

How or why in a pre OR post Bruen decision world would any free man have any regard for this absurd decision??

 

[Joeldiaz]

How or why in a pre OR post Bruen decision world would any free man have any regard for this absurd decision??

Well considering the fact that the ISP have openly said they will actively be going after anyone who bought “freedom week” assault weapons once the registration deadline is up, I’d say in this instance people have a right to hold this decision in some regard.

 

[kevin9]

Typical leftist behavior. The answer is "no", now let's see if we can construct some arguments to justify it.

 

[milktree]

Said SBS can be restricted under fed law because it isn't useful for war. You know, like mg's aren't.

Here's a funny fact:

You know how the minimum barrel length for a rifle is 16", but for a shotgun it's 18"? Ever wonder why?

Well, originally they were both 18", but ... then WW-II ended and there was a million-billion M1-Carbines sitting around .gov wanted to offload into civilian hands. but there's a problem! The M1-Carbine has a 17.75" barrel! Oh no! What to do?

The answer: Reduce the NFA barrel length limit for rifles to 16", therefore making all those M1-Carbines regular rifles!

(let's ignore the idiocy of the statement "SBS or SBR aren't useful for war", or even the idiocy of SBRs and SBSs being restricted AT ALL only because they were a holdover from the NFA negotiations between the groups that wanted to put handguns under the NFA and they wanted to make sure you didn't "make" a handgun by cutting down a rifle or shotgun. But then handguns were dropped from the NFA, thereby making SBRs and SBSs inclusion unnecessary, but they stayed in anyway, for some reason.)

 

[OnTheRoad]

 

[strangenh]

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

United States v. Miller: Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.

supreme.justia.com

I.E., machine guns are protected; "sporting rifles" aren't.

Thank you. The left used to not cite Miller at all, saying more or less that it held no real precedential value (which is essentially true). At some point in the lead-up to Heller, they decided to misrepresent it as upholding laws curtailing civilian ownership of military weapons. If it had any real precedential value, its actual language is that 2A is there to ensure military weapons cannot become the government's monopoly.

 

[KBCraig]

AR-15 was sent to ATF in 1963 for approval as a civilian rifle. 70 years ago.

Please check your math.

I debuted in 1963, but I’m pretty sure I’m not 70.

I feel 90 some days, though.

 

[556USER]

not gonna happen, unfortunately. Dems are gonna win the next election and replace Alito and Thomas, who are both on death’s doorstep.

Yes, and when that happens the libtard governors and AGs around the country will gleefully enforce the rulings by the new court that trash the 2nd amendment. No more ignoring the SCOTUS rulings.

 

[556USER]

View attachment 813796

Yup, and when those same 287 were not sticking things up their anuses they were clutching their pearls over ARs. They will not be missed.

 

[Qwikdraw45]

So what is another law that restricts law abiding citizens going to achieve...nothing. Other than restrict me from owning something that is only a threat to paper politicians.

FIFY

 

[jkelly1229]

No, they’re not. Not yet, anyway. This case is still on interlocutory appeal. No final judgment has been made in the case, this was a decision on a motion for preliminary injunction as the case continues. SCOTUS almost never gets involved with these matters.

Speak like we're retarded

 

[Reptile]

The 7th Circuit holds that AR-15s aren’t protected by the Second Amendment

Illinois desperately wants to ensure that, within the state’s borders, only criminals have guns. When it comes to law-abiding citizens, the state will do anything to disarm them. That includes passing a law that pretty much bans “assault ...

www.americanthinker.com

 

[Fixxah]

View attachment 813739