Ammo For Sale

« « So, what caliber for riot? | Home | Gun Porn » »

America’s most popular rifle is “unusual”

US District Court Judge Catherine C. Blake says ARs and AKs are not protected under the second amendment because they are unusual and dangerous, citing Heller. As for dangerous, it’s a stupid qualifier. All guns are dangerous. Although, I think the court intended “dangerous” to mean guns that fired something other than one bullet per pull and something that didn’t explode, I can’t be sure. It seemed a stupid qualifier regardless. But the most commonly owned rifle in America is certainly not unusual.

18 Responses to “America’s most popular rifle is “unusual””

  1. Kevin Baker Says:

    However, such firearms easily pass the Miller test of being suitable for use in a well regulated militia, or “part of the ordinary military equipment.”

    I don’t think her finding will stand.

  2. Linoge Says:

    “… in common use for lawful purposes…”

    This ruling is screwed.

    And the good news? Striking it down will be one hell of a blow against the “gun control” cult; it might even be the basis for knocking out all the other AWB laws out there…

  3. MrSatyre Says:

    Uncle, I’m surprised at you. There’s no such thing as a dangerous gun, remember? It’s people who are dangerous. It’s people who are irresponsible. The gun is just a tool, like the judge’s gavel.

  4. Paul Kisling Says:

    Sounds like she ruled ak’s and AR’s to AOWs…

  5. cheezy Says:

    Time to go to the supreme court with this one,other than rem 870,ruger 10/22 and some others ar’s and ak’s are the most abundant and popular , especially the ar

  6. cheezy Says:

    and god help us all if obama gets his way and more supreme court justices step down /retire , could you imagine the type of crap that will happen to america and our freedoms then ugh!

  7. Rivrdog Says:

    Kevin Baker, you don’t have to get to the “Miller test” here, because the Judge fell on her legal face by proclaiming the primary purpose of the 2A to be “home defense”. Every high school and college debate team I ever faced is easily capable of presenting a convincing case that the Founders meant the 2A to forever legally allow the arming of the militias with militarily-adequate arms.

  8. benEzra Says:

    The gullibility, and sheer technical ignorance, packed into that opinion is stunning.

    The most popular civilian centerfire rifle in the United States is “rare”?

    A non-automatic centerfire .22 is vastly more dangerous than other non-automatic centerfires of larger caliber?

    A non-automatic civilian rifle is MORE dangerous in the wrong hands than a military assault rifle that can fire in both automatic and non-automatic modes?

    This is a person who adjusts reality to fit her own preconceptions and prejudices, methinks.

  9. mikee Says:

    It is worse than improper use of ownership stats – the judge essentially uses multiple incorrect arguments to find the law constitutional: The guns are not widely owned (only by the millions!), hence are not common under Heller. And they are not useful to home defense (an unsupported assertion) despite being owned in the millions for that purpose, and having made the newspapers in recent riots as being OK for defense of businesses in riots by citizens. But they are common enough to be disproportionately used by criminals (a blatant falsehood), and police say they are scary dangerous (an unsupported, incorrect falsehood by police and the judge).

    So a weapon that is effective against police by criminals is ineffective against criminals by citizens; a weapon used by criminals enough to rise to the level of disproportionate use is not common enough to be owned by citizens; and because the weapons are not used often enough, in the judge’s opinion, for home defense they are unsuitable for home defense.

    Good lord, under such specious ‘reasoning’ the judge could allow members of any minority to be rounded up, loaded on cattle cars, and sent to the gas chambers. Because the plain words of the text of the constitution apparently mean nothing, and only the opinions of judges mean anything!

  10. dustydog Says:

    I haven’t read the actual filings, and I haven’t seen anyone address it.

    Does anyone know – did the plaintiffs adequately address the issues she listed (e.g. not in common use, not adequate for self defense)?

    Did she ignore their filing, or did they fail to make the case?

  11. hank Says:

    Did she ignore their filing, or did they fail to make the case?

    The points were raised, but she chose to put more credence on the state’s witnesses.

  12. SD3 Says:

    Pfft. My mother-in-law is ‘unusual’ & dangerous, but they still let her walk around unsupervised.

  13. Kristophr Says:

    Kevin: However, such firearms easily pass the Miller test of being suitable for use in a well regulated militia, or “part of the ordinary military equipment.”

    This. A strict reading of the second amendment only protects the burst fire M-4, its matching grenade launcher, the M9 pistol, and maybe the M-240 and M-249.

  14. CHEEZY Says:

    mikee

    wow very well said!!!!, really dont think the points you made could be made any clearer!!!!!

  15. Shootin' Buddy Says:

    “Good lord, under such specious ‘reasoning’ the judge could allow members of any minority to be rounded up, loaded on cattle cars, and sent to the gas chambers.”

    Judges already have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

  16. Geodkyt Says:

    Not quite, Kristophr.

    A strict interpretation of the Second Amendment wouldn’t protect the grenade launcher (grenade launchers WERE known in the 18th century, and were NOT considered “arms” — they were considered “ordnance”, a related, but different, category).

    Nor would it be restricted to the M4 and the M9. Militia weapons were only required to be capable of accepting and firing the standard service cartridge after 1797. So, anything that is militarily useful that can chamber and fire the 5.56x45mm NATO (STANAG 4172) cartridge, whether semiauto or selective fire, and any pistol that can chamber and fire the 9x19mm NATO catridges would be acceptable — and likely (since they are ALSO current standard service rounds) the 7.62x51mm NATO, .45ACP, and even the .40S&W (USCG is part of the Armed Forces.) You also left out the bayonet, web gear, body armor, etc, that are ALSO “arms” under an 18th Century use of the word – as the cartdige box, bayonet, and other sidearms were also “arms”.

    And that’s under the STRICTEST of interpretations.

    But since the requirement that the militia muster with a weapon that uses the standard service round after 1797 is a _statutory_ requirement, not a Constitutional one, I would say that interpreting the 2nd Amendment that restrictively is DOA. ANY individual weapon (i.e., “arms”, in teh 18th Century meaning of the term) reasonably capable of useful militia service are portected, even in nonstandard calibers and configurations. And that’s the Miller test.

  17. Paul Kisling Says:

    Here is a list of what the US government considers Arms.

    From ITAR.

    http://fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p121.htm

  18. Kristophr Says:

    Geodykt:

    That fracas at Lexington and Concord was started because a Mr. John Hancock bought a couple of cannon for his friend, the militia commander.

    Privately owned cannon were a common feature on privately owned US merchant vessels.

    I think a grenade launcher qualifies, if one infantryman in four in Inf squads in the Army get one.