Florida group to initiate an "assault weapons" ban on the ballot.

[Rucker61]

The Constitution does not outline every single precise exact detail. That's why we have this crazy thing called "jurisprudence."

I'm quite confident that I have quoted the relevant sections of Heller to you, more than once. Your inability to learn basic facts about constitutional law is not charming.

Your ability to read into Heller what doesn't actually exist is predictable.

The US Army was able to define "assault rifles" decades ago. I'm sure you can catch up to the US Army circa 1970.

The 5.56mm x 45 cartridge is a rifle round. We also never called the M16 an "assault rife". We called it a "rifle".

No, a semantic game would only revolve around a bunch of meaningless words. The definition of an assault rifle is based on properties and functions.

The games are played by people who don't want to accept that the government is, in fact, empowered to regulate firearms.

The GCAs use the term "assault weapon" in an effort to ban firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" using ever changing definitions of what is an "assault weapon", typically based on cosmetic details not related to basic operation of the firearm. They are playing games.

"Assault rifles" and any other selective fire firearm, regardless of caliber, appearance or cosmetics, are regulated exactly the same way. The definition of "assault rifle" as a separate category of firearm has no real use.

 

[CLAX1911]

The Constitution does not outline every single precise exact detail. That's why we have this crazy thing called "jurisprudence."

I'm quite confident that I have quoted the relevant sections of Heller to you, more than once. Your inability to learn basic facts about constitutional law is not charming.



The US Army was able to define "assault rifles" decades ago. I'm sure you can catch up to the US Army circa 1970.

the US army has access to weapons that the u.s. citizens do not.

No, a semantic game would only revolve around a bunch of meaningless words. The definition of an assault rifle is based on properties and functions.

just because you keep repeating that it's based on something you can't quantify doesn't mean it's so.

list these properties and functions if you cannot then show me that you know that it is properties and functions that separates a so-called assault weapon from any other firearm.

Why can't you do that there wouldn't be no need to caterwaul about semantics if you did. The effort you put into dodging that you could have instead researched it.

But I don't think you're interested.

The games are played by people who don't want to accept that the government is, in fact, empowered to regulate firearms.

You can believe this how come if you want but anyone holding your feet to the fire on this doesn't buy it for a second.

If you want to ban an assault weapon you have to know what you're talking about. You said it's based on properties and functions, list them please. Stop telling me that it's based on something you have no clue about. Show me you have a clue or that you can get a clue.

 

[CLAX1911]

Your ability to read into Heller what doesn't actually exist is predictable.



The 5.56mm x 45 cartridge is a rifle round. We also never called the M16 an "assault rife". We called it a "rifle".



The GCAs use the term "assault weapon" in an effort to ban firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" using ever changing definitions of what is an "assault weapon", typically based on cosmetic details not related to basic operation of the firearm. They are playing games.

"Assault rifles" and any other selective fire firearm, regardless of caliber, appearance or cosmetics, are regulated exactly the same way. The definition of "assault rifle" as a separate category of firearm has no real use.

I don't think they realize that every time they talk to someone who knows more about firearms and the laws governing them when they say assault weapon, they might as well be saying scary scary bang bang.

 

[Visbek]

Your ability to read into Heller what doesn't actually exist is predictable.

:roll:

Do I really need to quote it again? Seriously?

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Needless to say, Scalia was more than clear enough for federal courts around the US to get the message, and uphold strict regulation on assault rifles.

The GCAs use the term "assault weapon" in an effort to ban firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" using ever changing definitions of what is an "assault weapon"....

Oh, really? Does California update its language every six weeks? Yeah, I don't think so. CA's Category Three list of generic characteristics was last updated in 2000; the Category One list was updated in 2001, then 2017.

We do occasionally see manufacturers or gun owners who try to game the system, e.g. adding bullet buttons in 2007 to deliberately flout the law. It took about 10 years for California law to close that loophole.

So no, the definitions do not shift with the daily tides.

 

[Visbek]

the US army has access to weapons that the u.s. citizens do not.

Okay... And that has pretty much nothing to do with the ability of legislators and governments to define types of firearms.

just because you keep repeating that it's based on something you can't quantify doesn't mean it's so.

And yet, you keep repeating your inane claims... Go figure.

list these properties and functions if you cannot then show me that you know that it is properties and functions that separates a so-called assault weapon from any other firearm.

I already have.

If you want another take, look at California's laws:

The Category One list: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
Category Two list is AK and AR-15 series weapons: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf
Category Three is based on generic characteristics, as outlined here: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2

As noted in my post above, updating the lists can take years; and the games are played by gun owners who try to deliberately find ways to flout the laws, such as by adding bullet buttons.

 

[Bum]

I imagine manufacturers of semi automatic platforms are going to make a bundle on this.

 

[CLAX1911]

Okay... And that has pretty much nothing to do with the ability of legislators and governments to define types of firearms.



And yet, you keep repeating your inane claims... Go figure.



I already have.

If you want another take, look at California's laws:

The Category One list: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf
Category Two list is AK and AR-15 series weapons: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf
Category Three is based on generic characteristics, as outlined here: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2

those early easily each a hundred page documents and I'm not reading all that. And I think you posted way too much information because you can't list features that make a gun an assault weapon.

As noted in my post above, updating the lists can take years; and the games are played by gun owners who try to deliberately find ways to flout the laws, such as by adding bullet buttons.

To flout a law is to openly disobey it. Altering a gun to the point where it's legal under the current written law is obeying the law. When they added bullet buttons was there a law against bullet buttons?

If not they're obeying.

They're just not doing what the California legislature wants them to do. And that's excellent It's called protesting and it's a right that everyone has.

 

[Rucker61]

:roll:

Do I really need to quote it again? Seriously?

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Needless to say, Scalia was more than clear enough for federal courts around the US to get the message, and uphold strict regulation on assault rifles.

"Assault rifles" have been under strict regulation since 1934. "Assualt weapons", which include semiautomatic rifles, some semiautomatic shotguns and some handguns, are completely different classes of firearms assigned to this classification purely on semantics. If you look at the definition of rifle based "assault weapon" in the 1994 AWB to that proposed in the 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2018 Assault Weapons Ban bills, you'll see that the authors have simply changed the word "two" to "one" when describing the number of features that turn a rifle into an "assault weapon". Those types of semiautomatic rifles that were not "assault weapons" in 1994 would now be classified such purely on a turn of a word, without actually changing the capabilities of the firearm at all. Shotguns with a pistol grip or a collapsible stock are "assault weapons" to be reviled and banned - those with a standard stock, still fully functional as a firearm, are totally exempt from the restrictions imposed by "assault weapons" bans.

We do know that firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" are protected; in Shew v Malloy, the 2nd Circuit Court acknowledged that rifles being classified as "assault weapons" by the state of Connecticut and the accompanying "large capacity magazine" were indeed in common use for lawful purposes. In Caetano v Massachusetts, in a 9-0 decision, the Court found that production and sales numbers as low as "hundreds of thousands" defined a weapon as "in common use"; a quick perusal of ATF rifle production records will show that AR-15s and similar firearms have annual production and sales exceeding 1.5 million units as recently as 2016 - numbers that greatly exceed the annual production and sales of the Ford F-series pickup trucks, the most commonly purchased pickup truck in the US.

Oh, really? Does California update its language every six weeks? Yeah, I don't think so. CA's Category Three list of generic characteristics was last updated in 2000; the Category One list was updated in 2001, then 2017.

Did I limit the change in definition to California? From 1994 to 2004 it took two proscribed features for a rifle to be an "assault weapon". In the AWB bills introduced in 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2018, it only took one proscribed feature to change a rifle into an "assault weapon". This year two gun banning Ohio state senators introduce a bill that changed the definition of an "assault weapon" in a bill to ban assault weapons as "any semiautomatic handgun that could accept a magazine with capacity of greater than ten cartridges", or in other words, pretty much every single semiautomatic handgun in existence.

Guess what isn't an "assault weapon"? The Ruger Ranch Rifle, aka Mini-14. Interesting, as that firearm was the type used in the worst single shooter massacre in the last one hundred years.

This also isn't an assault weapon:

We do occasionally see manufacturers or gun owners who try to game the system, e.g. adding bullet buttons in 2007 to deliberately flout the law. It took about 10 years for California law to close that loophole.

So no, the definitions do not shift with the daily tides.

Mini-14s and M1 Carbines are still legal to own in California. The Mini-14 shoots the same round as the AR-15 at the same rate of fire. Feel safe now?

 

[TurtleDude]

"Assault rifles" have been under strict regulation since 1934. "Assualt weapons", which include semiautomatic rifles, some semiautomatic shotguns and some handguns, are completely different classes of firearms assigned to this classification purely on semantics. If you look at the definition of rifle based "assault weapon" in the 1994 AWB to that proposed in the 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2018 Assault Weapons Ban bills, you'll see that the authors have simply changed the word "two" to "one" when describing the number of features that turn a rifle into an "assault weapon". Those types of semiautomatic rifles that were not "assault weapons" in 1994 would now be classified such purely on a turn of a word, without actually changing the capabilities of the firearm at all. Shotguns with a pistol grip or a collapsible stock are "assault weapons" to be reviled and banned - those with a standard stock, still fully functional as a firearm, are totally exempt from the restrictions imposed by "assault weapons" bans.

We do know that firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" are protected; in Shew v Malloy, the 2nd Circuit Court acknowledged that rifles being classified as "assault weapons" by the state of Connecticut and the accompanying "large capacity magazine" were indeed in common use for lawful purposes. In Caetano v Massachusetts, in a 9-0 decision, the Court found that production and sales numbers as low as "hundreds of thousands" defined a weapon as "in common use"; a quick perusal of ATF rifle production records will show that AR-15s and similar firearms have annual production and sales exceeding 1.5 million units as recently as 2016 - numbers that greatly exceed the annual production and sales of the Ford F-series pickup trucks, the most commonly purchased pickup truck in the US.


Did I limit the change in definition to California? From 1994 to 2004 it took two proscribed features for a rifle to be an "assault weapon". In the AWB bills introduced in 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2018, it only took one proscribed feature to change a rifle into an "assault weapon". This year two gun banning Ohio state senators introduce a bill that changed the definition of an "assault weapon" in a bill to ban assault weapons as "any semiautomatic handgun that could accept a magazine with capacity of greater than ten cartridges", or in other words, pretty much every single semiautomatic handgun in existence.

Guess what isn't an "assault weapon"? The Ruger Ranch Rifle, aka Mini-14. Interesting, as that firearm was the type used in the worst single shooter massacre in the last one hundred years.

This also isn't an assault weapon:

View attachment 67245094



Mini-14s and M1 Carbines are still legal to own in California. The Mini-14 shoots the same round as the AR-15 at the same rate of fire. Feel safe now?

his support of gun banning is purely political. explaining things like this to him is a waste of time.

 

[Visbek]

those early easily each a hundred page documents and I'm not reading all that. And I think you posted way too much information because you can't list features that make a gun an assault weapon.

You obviously didn't even bother to skim the links. The first one lists pretty much one series per page -- e.g. the Armalite AR-180 is page 9, Beretta AR-70 is on page 10, etc.

The second link is a whopping 3 pages long.

The third link (generic properties) is about 1 page long.

You asked for a list; I gave you a list; you didn't even glance at it. What a shock.

To flout a law is to openly disobey it. Altering a gun to the point where it's legal under the current written law is obeying the law. When they added bullet buttons was there a law against bullet buttons?

They added the bullet buttons not to enhance the functionality of the firearm, but to do an end-run around the law. That's basically the same as saying "there's nothing wrong with this new synthetic version of heroin, because they haven't outlawed it yet!"

 

[TurtleDude]

You obviously didn't even bother to skim the links. The first one lists pretty much one series per page -- e.g. the Armalite AR-180 is page 9, Beretta AR-70 is on page 10, etc.

The second link is a whopping 3 pages long.

The third link (generic properties) is about 1 page long.

You asked for a list; I gave you a list; you didn't even glance at it. What a shock.



They added the bullet buttons not to enhance the functionality of the firearm, but to do an end-run around the law. That's basically the same as saying "there's nothing wrong with this new synthetic version of heroin, because they haven't outlawed it yet!"

the idiots ban things based on cosmetics and then complain when the makers modify the cosmetics to avoid the moronic law. This is why we need more Trump judges-to slap this stupidity away. I have yet to hear anyone make a valid argument why a flash hider or a bayonet lug or a pistol grip moves a weapon with one or more of those features into the category of "Unusually dangerous"

 

[Visbek]

"Assault rifles" have been under strict regulation since 1934. "Assualt weapons", which include semiautomatic rifles, some semiautomatic shotguns and some handguns, are completely different classes of firearms blah blah blah...

It should be clear, to anyone who actually wants to understand the situation, that legislators can devise laws that define classifications of firearms. They can use specific lists, they can use generic properties. Of course, if they update the lists on a regular basis, you complain that the definitions are "unstable;" if they update them too slowly, you complain they're "outdated." It's not easy to take demands for impossible standards as offered in good faith.

We do know that firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" are protected...

We also know that dangerous firearms can be regulated. And we also know that assault rifle bans have been consistently upheld by courts after Heller.

Guess what isn't an "assault weapon"? The Ruger Ranch Rifle....

The question is not "can legislators restrict every dangerous firearm?" It's "can they define 'assault rifles?'" The answer to the latter question is: Yup.

 

[TurtleDude]

It should be clear, to anyone who actually wants to understand the situation, that legislators can devise laws that define classifications of firearms. They can use specific lists, they can use generic properties. Of course, if they update the lists on a regular basis, you complain that the definitions are "unstable;" if they update them too slowly, you complain they're "outdated." It's not easy to take demands for impossible standards as offered in good faith.



We also know that dangerous firearms can be regulated. And we also know that assault rifle bans have been consistently upheld by courts after Heller.



The question is not "can legislators restrict every dangerous firearm?" It's "can they define 'assault rifles?'" The answer to the latter question is: Yup.

those lower courts have all ignored the holding of Heller.

 

[Rucker61]

It should be clear, to anyone who actually wants to understand the situation, that legislators can devise laws that define classifications of firearms. They can use specific lists, they can use generic properties. Of course, if they update the lists on a regular basis, you complain that the definitions are "unstable;" if they update them too slowly, you complain they're "outdated." It's not easy to take demands for impossible standards as offered in good faith.



We also know that dangerous firearms can be regulated. And we also know that assault rifle bans have been consistently upheld by courts after Heller.



The question is not "can legislators restrict every dangerous firearm?" It's "can they define 'assault rifles?'" The answer to the latter question is: Yup.

It's still unconstitutional, and does nothing to protect the public. More people are murdered by water each year than by AR-15s in mass shootings on average since the introduction of the AR-15. The average number of deaths in a mass shooting per year with an AR-15 since the introduction of the AR-15 in 1964 is five.

There's no safety reason to ban them. It's all political or fear by innumerate idiots.

 

[TurtleDude]

It's still unconstitutional, and does nothing to protect the public. More people are murdered by water each year than by AR-15s in mass shootings on average since the introduction of the AR-15. The average number of deaths in a mass shooting per year with an AR-15 since the introduction of the AR-15 in 1964 is five.

There's no safety reason to ban them. It's all political or fear by innumerate idiots.

I own a Beretta AR 70. other than the safety lever which works in the wrong direction and the magazine catch which is like an AK, it has the reliability of the AK with the accuracy of an AR. I would bet there have been none or less than 5 crimes committed with one. I owned and sold a Valmet 76. the gun that the IDF's Gallil is based on-same thing. Those were far more expensive than the WASR and NOrinco AKs and I doubt any were used for nefarious purposes. What happened was some bannerrhoid politician like Feinswine had one of her toadies go through a copy of firearms available in the USA and pick all the scary looking ones out to be named in her cretinous ban

 

[<alt>doxygen]

what the bannerrhoid petition will do

sell lots and lots of the firearms that the turds want to ban-which makes them MORE COMMONLY USED

get the NRA more members

cause the idiots who support this nonsense to get beat in purple congressional districts

No worries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Hammer
She owns the legislature here. If needed, the legislature will write a bunch of impossible to implement versions until the clock runs out. They tried to do that with medical MJ, but Scott forced them back into session to get more money for his own pet issues.

Unconstitutional BS anyway...

 

[CLAX1911]

You obviously didn't even bother to skim the links.

They are 96 pages long. If you don't know, just say you don't know.

The first one lists pretty much one series per page -- e.g. the Armalite AR-180 is page 9, Beretta AR-70 is on page 10, etc.

The second link is a whopping 3 pages long.

The third link (generic properties) is about 1 page long.

You asked for a list; I gave you a list; you didn't even glance at it. What a shock.

you dumped 3 novels on me and said find it.

Only after I call you out on it do you tell me where I can find it.

Should have done that in the first place. Don't blame me for your dishonesty.

They added the bullet buttons not to enhance the functionality of the firearm, but to do an end-run around the law.

No, they added it to comply with the law, complying with dumb laws often doesn't enhance functions.

That's basically the same as saying "there's nothing wrong with this new synthetic version of heroin, because they haven't outlawed it yet!"

No, it's like when the speed limit is 55 MPH And you drive 55MPH. If you want people to go 45 MPH set it at 45.

People using ingenuity to keep their fire arms is all that's happening.

 

[CLAX1911]

I own a Beretta AR 70. other than the safety lever which works in the wrong direction and the magazine catch which is like an AK, it has the reliability of the AK with the accuracy of an AR. I would bet there have been none or less than 5 crimes committed with one. I owned and sold a Valmet 76. the gun that the IDF's Gallil is based on-same thing. Those were far more expensive than the WASR and NOrinco AKs and I doubt any were used for nefarious purposes. What happened was some bannerrhoid politician like Feinswine had one of her toadies go through a copy of firearms available in the USA and pick all the scary looking ones out to be named in her cretinous ban

He's mad because gun owners are finding a way to comply with the law without giving up ground. He calls that a work around or flouting. It's compliance.

Why people say compliance is a work around is because they want people not to have these guns at all. But they can't flout the Constitution.

If California banned the AR model they would just make a different model. They would call this a work around.

 

[TurtleDude]

He's mad because gun owners are finding a way to comply with the law without giving up ground. He calls that a work around or flouting. It's compliance.

Why people say compliance is a work around is because they want people not to have these guns at all. But they can't flout the Constitution.

If California banned the AR model they would just make a different model. They would call this a work around.

Feinswine had a major meltdown after the gun ban was passed when the twit whined that makers were "violating the spirit of the law" by modifying their firearms to not meet the standards required for banning. Think about that for a minute. Of course that same POS said if she had the votes, she would have tried to confiscate every gun already owned that met the ban criteria. Of course that would mean that she would no longer be in office if that happened-I doubt even the nut cases in California would vote for her if that nonsense came to pass.

 

[CLAX1911]

Feinswine had a major meltdown after the gun ban was passed when the twit whined that makers were "violating the spirit of the law" by modifying their firearms to not meet the standards required for banning.

Good. Scum bag hates the Constitution. I think she should be jailed personally.

Think about that for a minute. Of course that same POS said if she had the votes, she would have tried to confiscate every gun already owned that met the ban criteria. Of course that would mean that she would no longer be in office if that happened-I doubt even the nut cases in California would vote for her if that nonsense came to pass.

Well good thing she doesn't have the votes. But then again that would be unconditional and lawsuits would bankrupt their legislature. I guess it's too much to think she could be prosecuted for sedition.

 

[Rich2018]

bans any rifle that is semi auto that can hold more than ten rounds. Clearly violates Heller. The people pushing this should be deemed enemies of our constitution.

Then just ban any semi-auto rifle.

 

[TurtleDude]

Then just ban any semi-auto rifle.

unconstitutional-would justify those who try to enact such a law being tried for treason

 

[Rucker61]

unconstitutional-would justify those who try to enact such a law being tried for treason

He knows this. He knows everything he proposes will require that the 2nd be overturned. He's said so multiple times. It's why I don't bother with him.

 

[TurtleDude]

He knows this. He knows everything he proposes will require that the 2nd be overturned. He's said so multiple times. It's why I don't bother with him.

Yes, I think your strategy is one I will adopt. Better to watch him debate himself

 

[rickc]

i live in florida and i a curious.

define ban:
ban on future sales. Georgia isn't banning anything.
ban on ownership. hell i would have to move. take my little .22 i bought when i was 10 years old. i don't think so
an outright confiscation. i don't think so.

this is just fearmongering and will certainly help gun sales. great idea an excuse to buy more guns. think i will order a couple more AR lower receivers today.