The 4 Circuit created a brand new test, never envisioned by SCOTUS on their 2nd Amendment ruling

[WVPATX]

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.

We have 5,000,000 AR 15's in the hands of the public. They are semiautomatic. The military has no interest in them. So are they now considered "most useful in military service?"

But one could look at this brand new test and say almost any weapon is "most useful in the military service, since all weapons can kill. Hand guns, AR 15's even though they are somewhat underpowered. A 30:06 would do a heck of a job in killing the enemy. Is this hunting rifle soon to be unconstitutional.

This new "standard" is in defiance of all precedent. But the 4 libs on SCOTUS will surely see this as a breakthrough. Thank God for Gorsuch.

 

[Mntneer]

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.

We have 5,000,000 AR 15's in the hands of the public. They are semiautomatic. The military has no interest in them. So are they now considered "most useful in military service?"

But one could look at this brand new test and say almost any weapon is "most useful in the military service, since all weapons can kill. Hand guns, AR 15's even though they are somewhat underpowered. A 30:06 would do a heck of a job in killing the enemy. Is this hunting rifle soon to be unconstitutional.

This new "standard" is in defiance of all precedent. But the 4 libs on SCOTUS will surely see this as a breakthrough. Thank God for Gorsuch.

This will be overturned.

Stupid judges acting stupidly.

 

[WVPATX]

This will be overturned.

Stupid judges acting stupidly.

What the hell does this new term, "most useful in military service" even mean? SCOTUS never applied this test. How does the 4th circuit develop it out of whole cloth? Hell, a knife is a useful military weapon.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

We have 5,000,000 AR 15's in the hands of the public. They are semiautomatic. The military has no interest in them. So are they now considered "most useful in military service?"

I'm not a long gun type of person, all of my weapons are handguns. So I looked for info on the AR-15 that seems to be the center of attention in most of these decisions and discussions. I came across a very informative article on Wikipedia on the history of the AR-15 rifle and its origins as a military weapon and then its sale for civilian use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15

Like I said, not a long gun guy, so can someone tell me what the civilian purpose is for owning an AR-15? Is it suitable for hunting? Or is it just a cool rifle to have around?

 

[WVPATX]

I'm not a long gun type of person, all of my weapons are handguns. So I looked for info on the AR-15 that seems to be the center of attention in most of these decisions and discussions. I came across a very informative article on Wikipedia on the history of the AR-15 rifle and its origins as a military weapon and then its sale for civilian use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15

Like I said, not a long gun guy, so can someone tell me what the civilian purpose is for owning an AR-15? Is it suitable for hunting? Or is it just a cool rifle to have around?

The second amendment is not about hunting, that is a red herring. The AR-15 is a very poplar weapon with 5,000,000 in circulation. It is light and fairly weak relative to true military weapons.

If a burglar breaks into your home and all you have is a 22 hand gun, you are at a severe disadvantage. It is made worse if you live in the country and the police are 30 minutes away. If criminals have these weapons, why should you not be allowed to have an equalizer?

If is a semi-automatic weapon and has no military use that I am aware. Maybe Dvldog has better insight. Again, the 4th circuits standard is so broad, it could include any type of gun or knife for that matter.

The 30:06 would be a much better, more useful military weapon and BTW, used for deer hunting a lot.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I'm not a long gun type of person, all of my weapons are handguns. So I looked for info on the AR-15 that seems to be the center of attention in most of these decisions and discussions. I came across a very informative article on Wikipedia on the history of the AR-15 rifle and its origins as a military weapon and then its sale for civilian use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15

Like I said, not a long gun guy, so can someone tell me what the civilian purpose is for owning an AR-15? Is it suitable for hunting? Or is it just a cool rifle to have around?

I want one badly. It's no different than any other semi-auto, except it has the ability to plug and play various components, even changing the caliber of the rifle.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

The second amendment is not about hunting, that is a red herring. The AR-15 is a very poplar weapon with 5,000,000 in circulation. It is light and fairly weak relative to true military weapons.

If a burglar breaks into your home and all you have is a 22 hand gun, you are at a severe disadvantage. It is made worse if you live in the country and the police are 30 minutes away. If criminals have these weapons, why should you not be allowed to have an equalizer?

If is a semi-automatic weapon and has no military use that I am aware. Maybe Dvldog has better insight. Again, the 4th circuits standard is so broad, it could include any type of gun or knife for that matter.

The 30:06 would be a much better, more useful military weapon and BTW, used for deer hunting a lot.

Yeah, I get it about the 2nd Amendment not about hunting, I only used that as a reference point on the AR-15. Like I said, not a long gun guy so I wanted to understand the rational for AR-15 ownership.

And it depends what you load in your .22. Mine is chambered with high velocity hollow points, tears a squirrel up, I tell ya'. Would do some major damage to a human torso, but not killing force unless you hit the exact right spot. That's why I also have a Taurus Judge chambered with .410 and .45 longs in alternating chambers in the cylinder. If the .410 doesn't stop 'em the next round (.45 cal) will.

But my favorite is my carry pistol, .25 Cal semi-auto. Nice and light, also chambered with high velocity hollow points. Does the job.

 

[WVPATX]

Yeah, I get it about the 2nd Amendment not about hunting, I only used that as a reference point on the AR-15. Like I said, not a long gun guy so I wanted to understand the rational for AR-15 ownership.

And it depends what you load in your .22. Mine is chambered with high velocity hollow points, tears a squirrel up, I tell ya'. Would do some major damage to a human torso, but not killing force unless you hit the exact right spot. That's why I also have a Taurus Judge chambered with .410 and .45 longs in alternating chambers in the cylinder. If the .410 doesn't stop 'em the next round (.45 cal) will.

But my favorite is my carry pistol, .25 Cal semi-auto. Nice and light, also chambered with high velocity hollow points. Does the job.

The judge is terrific particularly if you are not yet a great shooter. But even armed with one of these handguns you'd be at a severe disadvantage if confronted with someone with an AR-15.

 

[Mntneer]

Like I said, not a long gun guy, so can someone tell me what the civilian purpose is for owning an AR-15? Is it suitable for hunting? Or is it just a cool rifle to have around?

It's suitable for anything really. Home defense, hunting, sport shooting, etc. It's probably the most versatile platform in history.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

The judge is terrific particularly if you are not yet a great shooter. But even armed with one of these handguns you'd be at a severe disadvantage if confronted with someone with an AR-15.

So it is suitable as a defensive weapon, self defense? Others have also posted that it can be used of hunting and sport shooting. Since the genesis of the rifle is from military purposes, has other civilian purposes, I'm trying understand why the ruling?

It does sound like some kind of new standard is being imposed that wasn't used before. I'm just trying to make sure I'm clear on this.

 

[WVPATX]

So it is suitable as a defensive weapon, self defense? Others have also posted that it can be used of hunting and sport shooting. Since the genesis of the rifle is from military purposes, has other civilian purposes, I'm trying understand why the ruling?

It does sound like some kind of new standard is being imposed that wasn't used before. I'm just trying to make sure I'm clear on this.

This is a brand new test, one SCOTUS has never proffered. This test is incredibly silly. Again, any weapon can have military value, even a knife. I believe SCOTUS strikes this down after Gorsuch is seated. As silly as this test is, I think the 4 libs on SCOTUS uphold it. But the wording is so broad, it would create a nightmare.

 

[Mntneer]

So it is suitable as a defensive weapon, self defense? Others have also posted that it can be used of hunting and sport shooting. Since the genesis of the rifle is from military purposes, has other civilian purposes, I'm trying understand why the ruling?

It does sound like some kind of new standard is being imposed that wasn't used before. I'm just trying to make sure I'm clear on this.

Yes, it can be used as a self defense weapon for sure.

 

[lenny4wvu]

Yeah, I get it about the 2nd Amendment not about hunting, I only used that as a reference point on the AR-15. Like I said, not a long gun guy so I wanted to understand the rational for AR-15 ownership.

And it depends what you load in your .22. Mine is chambered with high velocity hollow points, tears a squirrel up, I tell ya'. Would do some major damage to a human torso, but not killing force unless you hit the exact right spot. That's why I also have a Taurus Judge chambered with .410 and .45 longs in alternating chambers in the cylinder. If the .410 doesn't stop 'em the next round (.45 cal) will.

But my favorite is my carry pistol, .25 Cal semi-auto. Nice and light, also chambered with high velocity hollow points. Does the job.

My Taurus, is my #1 choice, but I have a 9mm M&P shield (as backup ).Wifey,carries a Glock 19 15 rnd.mag (M&P 9mm shield for back up)..Bring it!..:wink::gun:ray:[smoke][thumbsup]

 

[WVPATX]

My Taurus, is my #1 choice, but I have a 9mm M&P shield (as backup ).Wifey,carries a Glock 19 15 rnd.mag (M&P 9mm shield for back up)..Bring it!..:wink::gun:ray:[smoke][thumbsup]

I think under this ruling all could be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

My Taurus, is my #1 choice, but I have a 9mm M&P shield (as backup ).Wifey,carries a Glock 19 15 rnd.mag (M&P 9mm shield for back up)..Bring it!..:wink::gun:ray:[smoke][thumbsup]

I'm diggin' on the Shield. This guy loves it, but hate enchilada sauce.