Most Useful In Military Service

[Rucker61]

Several recent lower court decisions have used the phrase “weapons that are most useful in military service” as a basis for ignoring the “in common use for lawful purposes” protection from Heller, etc. and upholding bans on AR-15s. It’s a technicality that conflates “like the M-16” with “[looks] like the M-16”, although AR-15s lack the selective fire capability of every single issue rifle of the world’s major armed forces. Those in the majority feel that using such a technicality is acceptable.
There’s a military axiom that “Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.” Given that, it could be claimed that only a subset of “assault weapons” are “most useful in military service”, those that are actually chambered in a caliber supported by the military. Without ammo that actually can be safely fired in a weapon, the weapon is no more than a paperweight, and that introducing a plethora of new calibers willy-nilly into a military force would complicate logistics and actually be detrimental to the combat effectiveness of the unit.
Given that, it could be claimed that “assault weapons” chambered in anything other than 5.56mm NATO, 7.62 NATO and .50 BMG are not “most useful in military service” and therefore not subject to banning based on that definition. It’s not without precedence – many European countries ban firearms that are chambered in military calibers but not the exact same firearm chambered in a non-military caliber, ie, 9mm x 19 vs 9mm x 21, where the latter cartridge was developed to allow sport shooters to use a 9mm pistol without running afoul of the law.

Thus AR-15s in .223, 6mmx45, 6mm BR, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoor, .300 Blackout, etc, would be perfectly legal to own, as they are not “most useful in military service.

 

[joG]

Several recent lower court decisions have used the phrase “weapons that are most useful in military service” as a basis for ignoring the “in common use for lawful purposes” protection from Heller, etc. and upholding bans on AR-15s. It’s a technicality that conflates “like the M-16” with “[looks] like the M-16”, although AR-15s lack the selective fire capability of every single issue rifle of the world’s major armed forces. Those in the majority feel that using such a technicality is acceptable.
There’s a military axiom that “Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.” Given that, it could be claimed that only a subset of “assault weapons” are “most useful in military service”, those that are actually chambered in a caliber supported by the military. Without ammo that actually can be safely fired in a weapon, the weapon is no more than a paperweight, and that introducing a plethora of new calibers willy-nilly into a military force would complicate logistics and actually be detrimental to the combat effectiveness of the unit.
Given that, it could be claimed that “assault weapons” chambered in anything other than 5.56mm NATO, 7.62 NATO and .50 BMG are not “most useful in military service” and therefore not subject to banning based on that definition. It’s not without precedence – many European countries ban firearms that are chambered in military calibers but not the exact same firearm chambered in a non-military caliber, ie, 9mm x 19 vs 9mm x 21, where the latter cartridge was developed to allow sport shooters to use a 9mm pistol without running afoul of the law.

Thus AR-15s in .223, 6mmx45, 6mm BR, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoor, .300 Blackout, etc, would be perfectly legal to own, as they are not “most useful in military service.

It is a wilfully false statement as the weapon's best use depends on circumstances.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is a wilfully false statement as the weapon's best use depends on circumstances.

bannerrhoid Democrat judges are upset with Heller and are engaged in mendacious attempts to ignore binding authority

 

[ttwtt78640]

Several recent lower court decisions have used the phrase “weapons that are most useful in military service” as a basis for ignoring the “in common use for lawful purposes” protection from Heller, etc. and upholding bans on AR-15s. It’s a technicality that conflates “like the M-16” with “[looks] like the M-16”, although AR-15s lack the selective fire capability of every single issue rifle of the world’s major armed forces. Those in the majority feel that using such a technicality is acceptable.
There’s a military axiom that “Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.” Given that, it could be claimed that only a subset of “assault weapons” are “most useful in military service”, those that are actually chambered in a caliber supported by the military. Without ammo that actually can be safely fired in a weapon, the weapon is no more than a paperweight, and that introducing a plethora of new calibers willy-nilly into a military force would complicate logistics and actually be detrimental to the combat effectiveness of the unit.
Given that, it could be claimed that “assault weapons” chambered in anything other than 5.56mm NATO, 7.62 NATO and .50 BMG are not “most useful in military service” and therefore not subject to banning based on that definition. It’s not without precedence – many European countries ban firearms that are chambered in military calibers but not the exact same firearm chambered in a non-military caliber, ie, 9mm x 19 vs 9mm x 21, where the latter cartridge was developed to allow sport shooters to use a 9mm pistol without running afoul of the law.

Thus AR-15s in .223, 6mmx45, 6mm BR, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoor, .300 Blackout, etc, would be perfectly legal to own, as they are not “most useful in military service.

These goofball laws seem to completely ignore the militia reference in the 2A. Weapons commonly used by a "militia grunt" (rifles, pistols. revolvers and shotguns) are precisely the arms that the 2A was meant to protect the people from having their right to keep and bear being restricted by the government. The fact that technology has improved does not exempt modern forms of speaking from 1A protection or computer records or their electronic communications from 4A protection so why should arms be limited to what the founders had access to?

 

[Rucker61]

These goofball laws seem to completely ignore the militia reference in the 2A. Weapons commonly used by a "militia grunt" (rifles, pistols. revolvers and shotguns) are precisely the arms that the 2A was meant to protect the people from having their right to keep and bear being restricted by the government. The fact that technology has improved does not exempt modern forms of speaking from 1A protection or computer records or their electronic communications from 4A protection so why should arms be limited to what the founders had access to?

 

[ttwtt78640]

View attachment 67223035

Close, since it's based on feelings, but that would be racist - it's because you're scary.

 

[Lutherf]

Several recent lower court decisions have used the phrase “weapons that are most useful in military service” as a basis for ignoring the “in common use for lawful purposes” protection from Heller, etc. and upholding bans on AR-15s. It’s a technicality that conflates “like the M-16” with “[looks] like the M-16”, although AR-15s lack the selective fire capability of every single issue rifle of the world’s major armed forces. Those in the majority feel that using such a technicality is acceptable.
There’s a military axiom that “Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.” Given that, it could be claimed that only a subset of “assault weapons” are “most useful in military service”, those that are actually chambered in a caliber supported by the military. Without ammo that actually can be safely fired in a weapon, the weapon is no more than a paperweight, and that introducing a plethora of new calibers willy-nilly into a military force would complicate logistics and actually be detrimental to the combat effectiveness of the unit.
Given that, it could be claimed that “assault weapons” chambered in anything other than 5.56mm NATO, 7.62 NATO and .50 BMG are not “most useful in military service” and therefore not subject to banning based on that definition. It’s not without precedence – many European countries ban firearms that are chambered in military calibers but not the exact same firearm chambered in a non-military caliber, ie, 9mm x 19 vs 9mm x 21, where the latter cartridge was developed to allow sport shooters to use a 9mm pistol without running afoul of the law.

Thus AR-15s in .223, 6mmx45, 6mm BR, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoor, .300 Blackout, etc, would be perfectly legal to own, as they are not “most useful in military service.

A rational interpretation of "most useful in military service" would be anything that isn't man portable and anything that involves area effect munitions. Hand grenades, artillery pieces, bombs, etc. are "most useful in military service". Rifles, pistols, light machine guns, etc. should all be good to go.