dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Pretty sure thats already the case, which is why the unSAFE Act is written the way it is.
Either way, NY will just ignore whatever ruling they dont like anyway just like they did with Bruen and immediately pass the CCIA.
Supreme court to take up ar-15 and semi auto bans.
- Thread starter SonOfSun
- Start date
Either way, NY will just ignore whatever ruling they dont like anyway just like they did with Bruen and immediately pass the CCIA.
spat
.950 JDJ
Yea, common use is a terrible standard. It basically allows outlawing anything new.
Man portable Railguns or lasers become a thing as battery technology improves ? Well, they're not common yet, so we can ban them.
The standard should be anything that is reasonably useful as a weapon.
Maybe weapons the government has categorically prohibited itself from using because they present such a catastrophic risk to the whole world, like biological weapons, can be banned, but that's about it.
Since the "standard", as the Four Boxes Diner is fond of explaining, is "not Dangerous AND Unusual", I would like to think the term "common use" is simply a short-cut to explain how a device doesn't meet that criteria.
So the question would be, how is "unusual" defined, and how can you prove a device doesn't meet that criteria without simple numbers of ownership?
Otherwise, as Spat and myself have said before, "common use" would freeze any and all new technology acquisition by "civilians". If that were the case the Dems could argue that all modern firearms after muskets were "unusual" at the time they were created, and will try to retroactively ban them.
Of course, they would have to make that announcement after having stated their opinion in writing, on parchment, and delivered to SCOTUS by horseback.
So the question would be, how is "unusual" defined, and how can you prove a device doesn't meet that criteria without simple numbers of ownership?
Otherwise, as Spat and myself have said before, "common use" would freeze any and all new technology acquisition by "civilians". If that were the case the Dems could argue that all modern firearms after muskets were "unusual" at the time they were created, and will try to retroactively ban them.
Of course, they would have to make that announcement after having stated their opinion in writing, on parchment, and delivered to SCOTUS by horseback.
We need someone willing to sue these tyrannical politicians for infringement of Rights under color of law, with a determination that "qualified immunity" really is qualified based on their duties, which DOESN'T include violating the Constitution!
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
They Found The “Legal” Way To Ban Every Semi-Auto In America
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
From the comments section posted above
Tom, this is ridiculous, I fully agree with you I am a retired Lockheed Skunkworks Mechanical and Structural Aerospace Engineer, am an A&P and a master Machinist and have been a gunsmith for 50 years. I have designed firearms and their actions, it is not rocket science. Once one understands the mechanical principals ANY semiauto design can be converted or modified to full auto operation, even though the original design did not allow it, the only roadblock is how much work will it take. The Pedersen device is an elegant design that was a drop-in once an ejection port was cut into the receiver sidewall, I have shot a .45ACP M1911 that had been converted to selectable full auto 30 year ago, without a shoulder stock it was basically uncontrollable, and I was then 6' and 220 lb. who had the nickname of magilla.
Show less
@michaelspivey4574
16 minutes agoTom, this is ridiculous, I fully agree with you I am a retired Lockheed Skunkworks Mechanical and Structural Aerospace Engineer, am an A&P and a master Machinist and have been a gunsmith for 50 years. I have designed firearms and their actions, it is not rocket science. Once one understands the mechanical principals ANY semiauto design can be converted or modified to full auto operation, even though the original design did not allow it, the only roadblock is how much work will it take. The Pedersen device is an elegant design that was a drop-in once an ejection port was cut into the receiver sidewall, I have shot a .45ACP M1911 that had been converted to selectable full auto 30 year ago, without a shoulder stock it was basically uncontrollable, and I was then 6' and 220 lb. who had the nickname of magilla.
Show less
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
You’ll have to explain this. It’s kind of vague and most AR’s are black, so they will get approved and then banned?
OwnTheRide
6.5 Creedmoor
It's the same thing I've been saying. They'll rule that banning ARs, or AKs, or anything specific, is no good, but they'll be absolutely silent on "evil features."
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
Thanks for explaining this.
Ok, but aren’t those features what make the gun that gun? You very well might be right, however if this is what they do who says semi automatic isn’t a feature of a gun?
To me this is the most critical ruling there is and this should have been before the court in 1994.
DrBleachCocktail
.44 mag
I can totally see this happening. Giving a “win” to both sides.
OwnTheRide
6.5 Creedmoor
Correct, but that's a logical and reasonable extension that I do not expect the court to take.
My understanding - which could be flawed - is that the laws being challenged ban specific guns, as opposed to a blanket ban of assault weapons based on features. For example, one of the bans that will be considered by SCOTUS is the Cook County IL ban. Rather than banning modern sporting rifles by a list of features, It lists 125 different types of rifles, including the AR-15.
I expect SCOTUS will invalidate a fair chunk of that law, including the list of banned rifles, but the decision will be very narrow: it will say "you can't ban the AR-15 or the other 124 rifles," but it will be silent on whether or not a state can impose a ban based on "evil features." So states like NY will say "we didn't ban the AR-15, we just banned semi-automatic rifles with features X/Y/Z." And we'll have to wait another 10+ years before SCOTUS takes up a case concerning "evil features" bans.
“….It’s a new world
….But it’s the same Constitution…”
….But it’s the same Constitution…”
RedBreast21
6.5 Creedmoor
"common use" in the UNITED STATES. States don't get to decide common use.
Making our Rights dependent on how many people have already used a particular item is a polite way of saying "only existing technology is approved". Everything new can, and likely WILL, be banned because "it's new and not in common use".
It leaves the door open for more of this same bullshit we're dealing with.
spat
.950 JDJ
I'm all for doing away with the whole thing requirement at all, but a ruling that government use qualifies as "common use" would go a long way.
If the government is issuing them to police or infantry, then surely they are in common use. A court needs to make that clear.
Any anti gun law below the federal level are unconstitutional. All anti gun laws at the federal level are unconstitutional. That is how the supreme courts should rule.
spat
.950 JDJ
The 2A should be so strong that the drug legalization lobby should be arguing that the DEA is unconstitutional because the Russians weaponized fentanyl once.