Appeals Court Rules that Second Amendment Doesn’t Protect Right to Assault Weapons
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
This is exactly why I wanted Trump before I ever wanted Hillary. I would have rather had neither, but at least with Trump I knew we'd get a SCOTUS appointee that would right of what Hillary would seek to put forth.
Allow this to play out and SCOTUS will eventually overrule the 4th.
Yes, knew that. He coached me 7-9th grades in bball and I had him as a health/phys.ed teacher in junior high.
My wife sees my "Assault Weapon" everynight when we go to bed....
My whole comment was going to be badumbum chssss ... but you robbed me of that joy with your GIF you selfish bastard
LOL...two things:
- good luck on putting the toothpaste back in the tube - too many semi-autos out there now for this to mean chit unless someone wants to propose a gun grab. And by the way please let me know when they define "assault-weapon"...because a real assault-weapon is what the military uses...not what is available for the ordinary public.
- SCOTUS will overturn (IMO).
Not so sure about that...there a more than a few articles dating back to 2014 (and a few beyond) indicating that there has been a shift in the 4th...going from conservative to center with a left-lean.
Not much difference in calibre but quite a bit of in muzzle velocity, knockdown power, lethality etc.
I thought his shot was unorthodox but agree that he could fill it up. He was kind of goofy but he meant well, a good guy.
But the function is the same, that is what he was saying. Are we attacking the specific calibers now?
That VT shooter was pretty lethal with a 22 caliber pistol and a 9mm pistol. A 22 is not a glorified bb gun - it can do enough damage to be lethal.
Lot of difference between a .223/5.56 a .308 a 9mm a 6.5 Grendel, etc. The AR is just a platform that can runs all kinds of calibers. We don't need courts cheery picking through them as well, as it would be just one more thing for them to get wrong.
This article is 3 years old as well.
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-liberal-shift-in-the-fourth-circuit-27839/
After watching this video, I will humbly defer to you
will be back as soon as I figure out how to post the video
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf__uAX-dX4
Last edited:
Never said a 223 and 22 were the same in terms of lethality...I just said that the VT shooter used a 22 (and 9mm) in his shooting...and I believe he had a high body count - probably second highest now. Just saying a 22 can be lethal.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/21/us-appeals-court-upholds-maryland-assault-weapons-ban.html
ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.
In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it's "unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment."
"It's a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it's en-banc and for the strength of its decision," Frosh said, noting that all of the court's judges participated.
Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn't even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority "has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms." He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.
"For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland's law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand," Traxler wrote.
National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said, "It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected `arm' under the Second Amendment." She added that the majority opinion "clearly ignores the Supreme Court's guidance from District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are `in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense."'
The NRA estimates there are 5 million to 10 million AR-15s -- one of the weapons banned under Maryland's law -- in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes. Asked about an appeal, Baker said the NRA is exploring all options.
But Elizabeth Banach, executive director of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, said the decision is "overwhelming proof that reasonable measures to prevent gun violence are constitutional."
"Maryland's law needs to become a national model of evidence-based policies that will reduce gun violence," Banach wrote in a statement.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake upheld the ban in 2015, but a divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that she didn't apply the proper legal standard. The panel sent the case back to Blake and ordered her to apply "strict scrutiny," a more rigorous test of a law's constitutionality. The state appealed to the full appeals court.
Maryland passed the sweeping gun-control measure after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre that killed 20 children and six educators in Connecticut. King mentioned the massacre at the start of the ruling.
"Both before and after Newtown, similar military-style rifles and detachable magazines have been used to perpetrate mass shootings in places whose names have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there," King wrote. He listed the 2012 shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; the December 2015 shootings in San Bernardino, California; and the shootings last year at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, where 49 people were killed and 53 injured.
King also noted that enacting the law is "precisely the type of judgment that legislatures are allowed to make without second-guessing by a court."
"Simply put, the State has shown all that is required: a reasonable, if not perfect, fit between the (Firearms Safety Act) and Maryland's interest in protecting public safety," King wrote.
ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.
In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it's "unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment."
"It's a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it's en-banc and for the strength of its decision," Frosh said, noting that all of the court's judges participated.
Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn't even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority "has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms." He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.
"For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland's law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand," Traxler wrote.
National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said, "It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected `arm' under the Second Amendment." She added that the majority opinion "clearly ignores the Supreme Court's guidance from District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are `in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense."'
The NRA estimates there are 5 million to 10 million AR-15s -- one of the weapons banned under Maryland's law -- in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes. Asked about an appeal, Baker said the NRA is exploring all options.
But Elizabeth Banach, executive director of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, said the decision is "overwhelming proof that reasonable measures to prevent gun violence are constitutional."
"Maryland's law needs to become a national model of evidence-based policies that will reduce gun violence," Banach wrote in a statement.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake upheld the ban in 2015, but a divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that she didn't apply the proper legal standard. The panel sent the case back to Blake and ordered her to apply "strict scrutiny," a more rigorous test of a law's constitutionality. The state appealed to the full appeals court.
Maryland passed the sweeping gun-control measure after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre that killed 20 children and six educators in Connecticut. King mentioned the massacre at the start of the ruling.
"Both before and after Newtown, similar military-style rifles and detachable magazines have been used to perpetrate mass shootings in places whose names have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there," King wrote. He listed the 2012 shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; the December 2015 shootings in San Bernardino, California; and the shootings last year at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, where 49 people were killed and 53 injured.
King also noted that enacting the law is "precisely the type of judgment that legislatures are allowed to make without second-guessing by a court."
"Simply put, the State has shown all that is required: a reasonable, if not perfect, fit between the (Firearms Safety Act) and Maryland's interest in protecting public safety," King wrote.
And yet, hand guns are responsible for 90% of gun deaths. Simply put, these guns are scary looking. Weapon of war? Hahahahahaha.
Thank god we are able to hang onto the SCOTUS majority.
The Fourth Circuit Runs Roughshod over Heller and the Second Amendment
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...d-assault-weapons-ban-constitutional-travesty
In upholding Maryland’s ‘assault weapons’ ban, the court employed dubious legal reasoning to trample on American constitutional rights. Freed up by the Supreme Court’s ongoing reluctance to engage in depth with the Second Amendment, the Fourth Circuit has taken it upon itself to rewrite Heller en banc. In a 10–4 decision, issued yesterday afternoon, the court upheld Maryland’s ban on both “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.” By so doing, it deprived the people of Maryland, the Carolinas, and the Virginias of the core protections to which the Constitution entitles them.
As Judge Traxler’s dissent pointedly establishes, the majority achieved this transformation by contriving “a heretofore unknown ‘test,’ which is whether the firearm in question is ‘most useful in military service.’” In effect, this “test” is designed to permit judges to determine that any weapon they might dislike is unprotected by the Second Amendment and can therefore be prohibited with impunity. Forget that Heller contains its own explicit tests. Forget the “common use” standard. Forget “dangerous and unusual.” There’s a new kid in town, and he’s coming for your rifles.
What counts as “most useful in military service” under this rubric? Well . . . everything, theoretically. “Under the majority’s analysis,” the dissenters contend, “a settler’s musket, the only weapon he would likely own and bring to militia service, would be most useful in military service — undoubtedly a weapon of war — and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.” Indeed, “the ‘most useful in military service’ rubric would remove nearly all firearms from Second Amendment protection as nearly all firearms can be useful in military service.” A standard semi-automatic handgun is plausibly “most useful in military service.” So, too, is a hunting rifle. So is a sword. Perhaps the Fourth Circuit would like to strip the constitutional protection from those weapons, too?
That, of course would be absurd — not only because it would render the Second Amendment meaningless as a check on state action, but because the Supreme Court has already delivered clear instructions to the contrary. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, which, recall, was decided per curiam, Justice Alito explained in no uncertain terms that “even a stun gun capable of only non-lethal force is suitable for military use,” but that this did not mean that stun guns could be banned. Alito sits on the Supreme Court, and was writing in concurrence with the other eight justices.
Perhaps the Fourth Circuit has forgotten where it sits in the pecking order. Or perhaps the Fourth’s majority is unfamiliar with Caetano. Certainly, its grasp of Heller is wanting. In pushing back against the majority’s newfangled test, the dissenters correctly note that “Heller in no way suggests that the military usefulness of a weapon disqualifies it from Second Amendment protection. That is the majority’s singular concoction.” Indeed it is. As for Heller’s “common use” and “dangerous and unusual” standards, both of those are thrown casually out the window. The evidence, notes Judge Traxler, leads one to the “unavoidable conclusion that popular semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 are commonly possessed by American citizens for lawful purposes within the meaning of Heller.” Moreover, the record “shows unequivocally that magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds are commonly kept by American citizens, as there are more than 75 million such magazines owned by them in the United States.” But the majority doesn’t care about that, choosing to apply only the “military” standard that it has invented. Evidently, it does not matter to Judge King that the standard in Heller is “dangerous and unusual” [italics mine] — i.e. that commonly owned, “usual” weapons cannot be prohibited on the grounds that they are particularly lethal. Nor, apparently, is King concerned that the Court ruled in Caetano that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” He and his colleagues had a conclusion to reach, and by gum were they going to get there.
This legal folly notwithstanding, the majority’s characterization of the AR-15 as “weapon of war” is flat-out wrong. First, the opinion suggests that because the AR looks like an M-16 (a weapon that is not widely owned by the citizenry), it counts as a military firearm. Then, perhaps anticipating the objection that the AR-15 has never been issued to a soldier in American military history, it makes a series of preposterous claims as to the weapon’s rate of fire, the sole purpose of which is to mislead readers into believing that the model shares more than an aesthetic relationship with the its automatic cousins. Semi-automatic rifles, Judge King suggests, can fire at a rate of between 300 and 500 rounds per minute — a capability that makes them “virtually indistinguishable” from a machine gun.
Judge Traxler’s dissent loses no time in taking this claim apart, as well it should:
The majority’s assertion might surprise the United States Army, which sets the maximum effective rates of M4- and M16-series rifles operating in semi-automatic mode at 45 to 65 rounds per minute — only about five rounds in five seconds (not 30 rounds as the majority believes). This is far slower than 150 to 200 rounds per minute that may effectively be fired by the same arms operating in fully automatic mode.
(Also surprised will be “some of the experts at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,” who have testified to the same effect before Congress.)
The legal problem here is obvious: If the AR-15 is unacceptably dangerous because it is semi-automatic, then so must be every other gun that fires once per pull of the trigger — including the handguns that were protected by Heller. “If the majority is correct,” writes Traxler, “that the semiautomatic AR-15’s rate of fire makes it a weapon of war outside the scope of the Second Amendment, then all semiautomatic firearms — including the vast majority of semiautomatic handguns — enjoy no constitutional protection since the rate of fire for any semiautomatic firearm is determined by how fast the shooter can squeeze the trigger.”
Indeed. And a further question must present itself. Since 1934, automatic weapons have been treated differently under the law in the United States. Why? If semi-automatics that are protected by Heller are practically identical to automatics — and if the “common use” standard is to be ignored as it has been here — shouldn’t the court be striking down the National Firearms Act? Words matter, especially in the law. “Common” can’t mean “unusual.” “And” can’t mean “or.” And parlor games can be played both ways: If we are to subject the plain terms of our precedents to the amateurish deliberations of motive-riven judges, there will be nothing to stop a different court from inverting the trick and striking down the NFA on the grounds that fully automatic weapons are so similar to semi-autos as to enjoy all the protections of “normal” civilian weapons.
Most worrying of all, the majority concludes its trail of destruction by playing preemptive games with the standard of review. Because it sets “assault weapons” outside of the Constitution’s remit, the majority never reaches the question of scrutiny. But it nevertheless wants us to know that it would have applied intermediate scrutiny, and that the law in question would have passed without difficulty. This is extraordinary. For a start, if the majority had decided that the Second Amendment applied, it would have been duty bound to apply strict scrutiny. As Judge Traxler notes, “once it is determined that a given weapon is covered by the Second Amendment, then obviously the in-home possession of that weapon for self-defense is core Second Amendment conduct and strict scrutiny must apply to a law that prohibits it.” From where, one might ask, did he get that idea? The answer: From United States v. Hosford. And which Circuit decided that case? The Fourth.
Not content simply to break with its own precedent, the majority then has the gall to justify its departure as if Heller had never been issued. How else to account for the submission that Maryland’s prohibition on “assault weapons” does not restrict the “core lawful purpose” of the Second Amendment because the state hasn’t touched other sorts of weapons — an argument that was explicitly rejected in Heller? It would be one thing for the court to argue that a law might pass strict scrutiny; that, while unlikely to be vindicated, is at least a defensible position. But to deprive the plaintiffs of that chance, and then to justify that denial using reasoning that defies seminal Supreme Court precedent, is something else entirely.
Were this a First Amendment case, those vexed by its outcome could merely wait for the Supreme Court to step in and reverse it. In this instance, however, such relief seems unlikely — at least in the foreseeable future. For whatever reason, the Court has been unwilling to take Second Amendment cases of late, a reluctance that has been caustically criticized by Justices Thomas and Scalia, both of whom have accused the judicial branch of treating the keeping and bearing of arms as a “second-class” right. One can only hope that Thomas is on the phone with the Fourth Circuit today. “That was a complaint,” he might say, “not an invitation.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...d-assault-weapons-ban-constitutional-travesty
In upholding Maryland’s ‘assault weapons’ ban, the court employed dubious legal reasoning to trample on American constitutional rights. Freed up by the Supreme Court’s ongoing reluctance to engage in depth with the Second Amendment, the Fourth Circuit has taken it upon itself to rewrite Heller en banc. In a 10–4 decision, issued yesterday afternoon, the court upheld Maryland’s ban on both “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.” By so doing, it deprived the people of Maryland, the Carolinas, and the Virginias of the core protections to which the Constitution entitles them.
As Judge Traxler’s dissent pointedly establishes, the majority achieved this transformation by contriving “a heretofore unknown ‘test,’ which is whether the firearm in question is ‘most useful in military service.’” In effect, this “test” is designed to permit judges to determine that any weapon they might dislike is unprotected by the Second Amendment and can therefore be prohibited with impunity. Forget that Heller contains its own explicit tests. Forget the “common use” standard. Forget “dangerous and unusual.” There’s a new kid in town, and he’s coming for your rifles.
What counts as “most useful in military service” under this rubric? Well . . . everything, theoretically. “Under the majority’s analysis,” the dissenters contend, “a settler’s musket, the only weapon he would likely own and bring to militia service, would be most useful in military service — undoubtedly a weapon of war — and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.” Indeed, “the ‘most useful in military service’ rubric would remove nearly all firearms from Second Amendment protection as nearly all firearms can be useful in military service.” A standard semi-automatic handgun is plausibly “most useful in military service.” So, too, is a hunting rifle. So is a sword. Perhaps the Fourth Circuit would like to strip the constitutional protection from those weapons, too?
That, of course would be absurd — not only because it would render the Second Amendment meaningless as a check on state action, but because the Supreme Court has already delivered clear instructions to the contrary. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, which, recall, was decided per curiam, Justice Alito explained in no uncertain terms that “even a stun gun capable of only non-lethal force is suitable for military use,” but that this did not mean that stun guns could be banned. Alito sits on the Supreme Court, and was writing in concurrence with the other eight justices.
Perhaps the Fourth Circuit has forgotten where it sits in the pecking order. Or perhaps the Fourth’s majority is unfamiliar with Caetano. Certainly, its grasp of Heller is wanting. In pushing back against the majority’s newfangled test, the dissenters correctly note that “Heller in no way suggests that the military usefulness of a weapon disqualifies it from Second Amendment protection. That is the majority’s singular concoction.” Indeed it is. As for Heller’s “common use” and “dangerous and unusual” standards, both of those are thrown casually out the window. The evidence, notes Judge Traxler, leads one to the “unavoidable conclusion that popular semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 are commonly possessed by American citizens for lawful purposes within the meaning of Heller.” Moreover, the record “shows unequivocally that magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds are commonly kept by American citizens, as there are more than 75 million such magazines owned by them in the United States.” But the majority doesn’t care about that, choosing to apply only the “military” standard that it has invented. Evidently, it does not matter to Judge King that the standard in Heller is “dangerous and unusual” [italics mine] — i.e. that commonly owned, “usual” weapons cannot be prohibited on the grounds that they are particularly lethal. Nor, apparently, is King concerned that the Court ruled in Caetano that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” He and his colleagues had a conclusion to reach, and by gum were they going to get there.
This legal folly notwithstanding, the majority’s characterization of the AR-15 as “weapon of war” is flat-out wrong. First, the opinion suggests that because the AR looks like an M-16 (a weapon that is not widely owned by the citizenry), it counts as a military firearm. Then, perhaps anticipating the objection that the AR-15 has never been issued to a soldier in American military history, it makes a series of preposterous claims as to the weapon’s rate of fire, the sole purpose of which is to mislead readers into believing that the model shares more than an aesthetic relationship with the its automatic cousins. Semi-automatic rifles, Judge King suggests, can fire at a rate of between 300 and 500 rounds per minute — a capability that makes them “virtually indistinguishable” from a machine gun.
Judge Traxler’s dissent loses no time in taking this claim apart, as well it should:
The majority’s assertion might surprise the United States Army, which sets the maximum effective rates of M4- and M16-series rifles operating in semi-automatic mode at 45 to 65 rounds per minute — only about five rounds in five seconds (not 30 rounds as the majority believes). This is far slower than 150 to 200 rounds per minute that may effectively be fired by the same arms operating in fully automatic mode.
(Also surprised will be “some of the experts at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,” who have testified to the same effect before Congress.)
The legal problem here is obvious: If the AR-15 is unacceptably dangerous because it is semi-automatic, then so must be every other gun that fires once per pull of the trigger — including the handguns that were protected by Heller. “If the majority is correct,” writes Traxler, “that the semiautomatic AR-15’s rate of fire makes it a weapon of war outside the scope of the Second Amendment, then all semiautomatic firearms — including the vast majority of semiautomatic handguns — enjoy no constitutional protection since the rate of fire for any semiautomatic firearm is determined by how fast the shooter can squeeze the trigger.”
Indeed. And a further question must present itself. Since 1934, automatic weapons have been treated differently under the law in the United States. Why? If semi-automatics that are protected by Heller are practically identical to automatics — and if the “common use” standard is to be ignored as it has been here — shouldn’t the court be striking down the National Firearms Act? Words matter, especially in the law. “Common” can’t mean “unusual.” “And” can’t mean “or.” And parlor games can be played both ways: If we are to subject the plain terms of our precedents to the amateurish deliberations of motive-riven judges, there will be nothing to stop a different court from inverting the trick and striking down the NFA on the grounds that fully automatic weapons are so similar to semi-autos as to enjoy all the protections of “normal” civilian weapons.
Most worrying of all, the majority concludes its trail of destruction by playing preemptive games with the standard of review. Because it sets “assault weapons” outside of the Constitution’s remit, the majority never reaches the question of scrutiny. But it nevertheless wants us to know that it would have applied intermediate scrutiny, and that the law in question would have passed without difficulty. This is extraordinary. For a start, if the majority had decided that the Second Amendment applied, it would have been duty bound to apply strict scrutiny. As Judge Traxler notes, “once it is determined that a given weapon is covered by the Second Amendment, then obviously the in-home possession of that weapon for self-defense is core Second Amendment conduct and strict scrutiny must apply to a law that prohibits it.” From where, one might ask, did he get that idea? The answer: From United States v. Hosford. And which Circuit decided that case? The Fourth.
Not content simply to break with its own precedent, the majority then has the gall to justify its departure as if Heller had never been issued. How else to account for the submission that Maryland’s prohibition on “assault weapons” does not restrict the “core lawful purpose” of the Second Amendment because the state hasn’t touched other sorts of weapons — an argument that was explicitly rejected in Heller? It would be one thing for the court to argue that a law might pass strict scrutiny; that, while unlikely to be vindicated, is at least a defensible position. But to deprive the plaintiffs of that chance, and then to justify that denial using reasoning that defies seminal Supreme Court precedent, is something else entirely.
Were this a First Amendment case, those vexed by its outcome could merely wait for the Supreme Court to step in and reverse it. In this instance, however, such relief seems unlikely — at least in the foreseeable future. For whatever reason, the Court has been unwilling to take Second Amendment cases of late, a reluctance that has been caustically criticized by Justices Thomas and Scalia, both of whom have accused the judicial branch of treating the keeping and bearing of arms as a “second-class” right. One can only hope that Thomas is on the phone with the Fourth Circuit today. “That was a complaint,” he might say, “not an invitation.”
The Fourth Circuit is "liberal", the Ninth Circuit is "liberal"....
So tell us wingnuts, which Circuits are "normal"?
So tell us wingnuts, which Circuits are "normal"?
Did you just throw 90% out there or do you know that? I would guess that it's probably even higher.
Do some reading on the 4th...from what I have seen many people have identified them as going from conservative to moderate to now leaning left. Or you can just make chit up.
That's a liberal code word for sure...being a military man yourself - would you rather have an AR-15 or a full automatic rifle?
I'm a Marine. Give me a K-Bar, a compass, and a canteen, I'll take whatever objective you need taken.
In all seriousness? I'd take an M1 over an M16 all day. I never went on burst with my M16, that's just throwing lead around for the sake of throwing lead down range. I also did a sting as a gunner on 240G and always volunteered for the Mk19 turret ride in convoys. The Mk19 will make your dick hard.
Anything that makes it look nasty, mean, and scary...maybe a picture of Hillary Clinton.
Very much. Method, environment, bad guy, etc.
M16s are a ***** to keep clean and functional in the desert. Not so bad in the humid jungle.
