I skipped the articles and have the actual ruling from the 4th Circuit (Virginia).

Long story short, the AR-15 is considered a military weapon due to ammo capacity and rate of fire.

Now, what I don't know is how this effects sales and ownership. It could mean it goes to the states, or it could mean a federal ban. In all likelihood this is going to SCOTUS for decision.

That's bizarre. Why ban a single type of civilian rifles for that reason when it can be applied to so many others?

To feel good about yourself for removing scary black assault rifles from the streets.

So I'm actually slogging through this whole PDF, up to page 20. I'll just edit this post with stupid shit I find

p.19 "Flash hiders are to hide you from the enemy" is about as stupid as "suppressors/silencers are supposed to hide you from the cops" For civilian shooters it's really more their convenience. Protect your ears and protect your eyes. If a gun was any other item silencers would be required by law, not a luxury applicable to a 200 tax and registration. And, having an AK without a flash hider on a very overcast day, I notice quite the (kinda cool but very annoying when you're trying to watch for your hits) fireball interfering with keeping my sight picture. It's not always about killing nuns, it's mostly about making sport shooting more enjoyable.

Why are pistol grips considered military features again? They're just super fucking ergonomic to the point where modern fencing foils have them.
If I'm reading the page 11 and 12 Maryland FSA banlist right, my AR doesn't name match any of the outright banned and doesn't meet two requirements for being a copycat weapon. But if I decide to put a folding stock on it to make storage or transportation to the range more convenient, it's now an illegal copycat weapon. Why? Because now I can hide it in my trench coat easier? Holy fucking thought police. Ban trench coats.

>night sights >military feature >ILLUMINATED TRITIUM IRON SIGHTS >MILITARY FEATURE ... no. Just no.

page 20. "Military grade" is a huge fucking buzzword that sells in every market and is second only to "aircraft grade" when it comes to aluminum products. Why does Colt's advertising consisting of tacticool operators and lines such as "made to the standards of our m-16 with the same tools and processes" matter in the slightest?

page22. Yes. The Clinton era assault weapon ban was a thing. It also expired and was not renewed. It's largest challenge in courts was under the Equal Protection Clause, as the bill left legal certain firearms that were functional reproductions of banned articles. It was never tried for a 2A violation because the NRA at the time was an entirely Fudd organization.


page 25. I mean... I can reload my rifle pretty fucking quick if I'm not worried about retaining the spent magazine. It's a pretty flawed argument. Shit, I can even top my Arisaka pretty fucking quick too. Stripper clips and internal mags are quite the combination. Ban century old Japanese service carbines.

pg 26. Right. Handguns are overwhelmingly chosen by the average American for self defense. This is because they're cheap compared to rifles and shotguns and the small size allows you to take it out of the home concealed (should you posses a license to do so). How does this discredit any other firearm for the role?

pg 30. yup, we're getting in to "why are you banning this but not that then that can very easily or basically already is this?" criticism of some elements of the clinton ban

pg. 30. yup again. People like .308 rifles for hunting elk. .308 Winchester will also kill a cop much better and at farther range than .223remington will. Ban grandad's elk gun

pg 30 finishes the explanation of that NSSF report... which is inherently flawed because it's a survey of dealers asking them what they think their customers want the firearms for. If you want usable data you need to ask the end customer, not the FFL.

pg 36 I feel as though they're misusing that bit of District of Columbia v. Heller, as if they're almost trying to say that court precedence says to just ban anything unpopular but the uppermost popular defense measures at home are all clear just because they're popular.

pg 41

Addressing assault weapons  in  particular,  the  Opinion  disclosed  the  court’s“inclin[ation] to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual,” based on “serious[] doubts that [they] are  commonly  possessed  for  lawful  purposes,  particularly self-defense in the home.”

That's  a very fancy way of saying "In my opinion, anyone who wants to buy one of these scary black rifles clearly wants to be up to no good with it" and is demonstrably wrong, especially given that law abiding AR-15 owners far outnumber the criminal.

Not restricted to any one page, but pg 48 is where I really just question what they mean by "barrel shroud" and why the concept of a non-metal material between your hand and the barrel of the firearm (which has been around since the advent of the musket) is suddenly a military grade feature.

pg 62

That  is,  although  we  do  not  endeavor  today  to  resolve  the  difficult questions raised by Heller  concerning the interplay of “in common use at the time,” “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” and “dangerous and unusual,”...

But that's exactly what you're doing, and you have already prior established that you believe that "dangerous or unusual" can rightfully be substituted for "dangerous and unusual"

Made it to pg 70, I still don't see their interpretation of the results of Heller as correct. I think I get why they think they're right, but I can't agree with it.

We all know why the suppressor was invented.

H. P. Maxim created his "Maxim Silencer" sometime around 1905 along side the automobile muffler for sporting use, mostly targeting big game hunters in his marketing and sales pitches... so...

I mean, yeah, it gained big government use combined with the (then new) .22lr pistols that were to then famously be used by the US OSS dudes running around Nazi Europe plainclothes doing crazy government spook shit, but that's almost forty years after the item was first produced.

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on February 28, 2017, 08:06:12 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 28, 2017, 07:59:13 PM

We all know why the suppressor was invented.

H. P. Maxim created his "Maxim Silencer" sometime around 1905 along side the automobile muffler for sporting use, mostly targeting big game hunters in his marketing and sales pitches... so...

>maxim

Oh my god. You're really going for that? Come on dude. We all know what the real application of these muzzle devices are. Again, earmuffs exist.

It's not always about the shooter, bro. Sometimes it is though, I mean, indoor ranges are giant fucking echo chambers of concrete and a few lanes all shooting at the same time can still register loud through a decent set of ears.
And then there's just general noise pollution outside. Why should I have to bother a nearby residence (or if you live in the right valley, and trust me, valleys echo, anybody within two miles) when I could bring that thunderclap down to a slamming car door?