PDA

View Full Version : Federal court: Semi-autos ‘indistinguishable’ from m-16s



Cebu_4_2
26th July 2019, 04:04 PM
FEDERAL COURT: SEMI-AUTOS ‘INDISTINGUISHABLE’ FROM M-16S
07/26/19 3:37 AM | by Chris Eger
Barrett REC10

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/07/26/federal-court-semi-autos-indistinguishable-from-m-16s

Guns commonly available on the consumer market in 43 states are banned for ownership in California, a prohibition upheld this week by a federal judge (Photo: Chris Eger/Guns.com)

A federal judge this week upheld California’s ban on many popular semi-auto firearms, saying they were “essentially indistinguishable from M-16s.”

The order, in a case brought by several gun owners in 2017 seeking to declare California’s “assault weapon” ban unconstitutional, saw U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton side with the state’s point of view. Staton, extensively citing briefs in the case from anti-gun groups such as the Brady Center, Everytown and Giffords, found that semi-autos banned either by name or cosmetic features such as collapsible stocks or muzzle brakes were basically military-grade hardware.

“Because the Court concludes that semiautomatic assault rifles are essentially indistinguishable from M-16s, which Heller noted could be banned pursuant to longstanding prohibitions on dangerous and usual weapons, the Court need not reach the question of whether semiautomatic rifles are excluded from the Second Amendment because they are not in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense,” said Staton, an appointment by President Obama. Prior to stepping up to the federal bench, Staton was a lawyer in private practice in San Francisco and a California Superior Court judge appointed by Gov. Gray Davis just before he was recalled.

Staton also quoted that the rate of fire of such guns, listed in the order as “300 to 500 round per minute rate” makes semiautomatic rifles “virtually indistinguishable in practical effect from machineguns.”

Not cited in Staton’s order was research filed in the case from the National Shooting Sports Foundation that no less than 15 million modern sporting rifles were built or imported between 1990 and 2015 and some 93 percent of gun retailers surveyed sold such firearms. The trade group has long held the guns are among the most popular in the country and have been sold on the commercial market since at least the 1960s.

The case is likely to be appealed further to the U.S. 9th Circuit, which is currently undergoing a shift in polarity in the wake of at least six new judges appointed by President Trump in recent months, over the howls of California’s delegation to the U.S. Senate, Democrats Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein notably organized the now-expired federal assault weapon ban while Harris, during her stint as California’s Attorney General, enforced the state’s AWB.

California is one of only seven states to have such bans.

midnight rambler
26th July 2019, 05:45 PM
Hyperlink

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/07/26/federal-court-semi-autos-indistinguishable-from-m-16s

Hitch
26th July 2019, 07:34 PM
“Because the Court concludes that semiautomatic assault rifles are essentially indistinguishable from M-16s, which Heller noted could be banned pursuant to longstanding prohibitions on dangerous and usual weapons, the Court need not reach the question of whether semiautomatic rifles are excluded from the Second Amendment because they are not in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense,” said Staton, an appointment by President Obama.

I bolded what I read as the dumbest ignorant attack on the 2nd amendment I've ever heard. These people are so stupid, they have absolutely no understanding of the 2nd amendment, nor the legal definition of self defense!

Fucking California. This state sucks. More and more people I talk to are getting so pissed off, like myself, that I could see a civil war breaking out here first.

midnight rambler
26th July 2019, 07:44 PM
Fucking California. This state sucks. More and more people I talk to are getting so pissed off, like myself, that I could see a civil war breaking out here first.

It already has on the lowest possible scale, and has been that way for a while.

If this isn't civil war, then what is it??

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7286671/California-couple-attacked-driveway.html

midnight rambler
26th July 2019, 07:48 PM
I absolutely agree that by appearances/cosmetics alone actual machineguns (officially defined as 'assault rifles' by the DoD aka select fire) and the modern sporting rifles are completely indistinguishable from each other unless one is handling the item in question and able to see the finer details. So what? The 2nd fucking INCLUDES select fire weapons, only the fucking left think otherwise.

Hitch
26th July 2019, 07:53 PM
It already has on the lowest possible scale, and has been that way for a while.

If this isn't civil war, then what is it??

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7286671/California-couple-attacked-driveway.html

I've been seeing a lot of signs lately, on private property, for this website.

https://soj51.org/

monty
27th July 2019, 06:05 AM
Hyperlink

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/07/26/federal-court-semi-autos-indistinguishable-from-m-16s

Decided by a court of incompetent jurisdiction, an Article IV/Article I territorial/bankruptcy court
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-5 How many Art. III courts are included in this U.S. District Courts Section of the United States Code?

Congress provided for military grade arms for the Militia of the States before it unconstitutionally disestablished them in 1903.
“At least as good for military purposes as carried by regular U.S armed forces”

Revised Statutes of the United States (1873-1874), TITLE XVI, THE MILITIA, § 1628, 18 Stat. 285, 285.

Revised Statutes of the United States (1873-1874), TITLE XVI, THE MILITIA, § 1661, 18 Stat. 285, 290.

U.S. Constitution Amendment II

osoab
27th July 2019, 06:56 AM
These people are so stupid, they have absolutely no understanding of the 2nd amendment, nor the legal definition of self defense!



I disagree. (((They))) and their minions are diabolical and sometimes blinded by their own fervor.

vacuum
27th July 2019, 03:17 PM
"longstanding prohibitions on dangerous weapons"

What the fuck are they talking about? Can someone show me a non-dangerous weapon?

midnight rambler
27th July 2019, 03:28 PM
"longstanding prohibitions on dangerous weapons"

What the fuck are they talking about? Can someone show me a non-dangerous weapon?

As far as guns and lead/copper/steel projectiles, no. But less than lethal weapons are generally considered ‘not dangerous.’