AR-15s Are Weapons of War. A Federal Judge Just Confirmed It.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-08-11/ar-15s-are-weapons-of-war-a-federal-judge-just-confirmed-it
AR-15s Are Weapons of War. A Federal Judge Just Confirmed It.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-08-11/ar-15s-are-weapons-of-war-a-federal-judge-just-confirmed-it
36 comments
“The masterful opinion for the whole court, sitting en banc as a single body, was written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee who is one of the most broadly respected appellate judges in the country…
AR-15s aren’t self-defense weapons, as Wilkinson’s opinion amply demonstrates. They are ultra-dangerous offensive weapons, “the most popular arms for terrorist attacks in the US.” Alongside AK-47s, they have “been used in every major terrorist attack on US soil in the last decade,” he writes. Wilkinson is not making a policy point but a constitutional one: AR-15s aren’t covered by the right to bear arms because they aren’t used in self-defense.”
Wait till that goes up to the Supreme Court
I personally don’t care.
If someone wants to own a tank, let them…
…*provided that they aren’t criminals or diagnosed as mentally ill.* Moreover, I think that training on every weapon you own should be mandatory, but that’s just the soldier in me cringing at untrained people with portable murder tools.
With the real threats of facism rising I don’t know why we’re still pushing sweeping gun control. Fuck man, lets have the rifles but meet in the middle on background checks, waiting periods, and gunshow loophole bans.
I know this is the unpopular opinion on this sub, but fuck it, tell me what you think? I don’t want just the police to have firearms. I’m an Afghanistan war veteran, an armed population is a threat to an occupying force no matter how technologically and logistically superior. I think the people should be reasonably armed.
I know, hit me with the school shootings. Fuck man, lets talk about our decaying mental health and education system. Lets talk about the rise of poverty linked to the rise of violent crime. Lets acknowledge the side that says “We don’t have a gun crisis, we have a mental health crisis.” also don’t want to solve the mental health crisis.
But we’re the ones that DO want to solve the mental health crisis and elevate people out of poverty. I believe that is the real way to lower violent crime, not increasing the power imbalance between the disenfranchised and the authorities that be.
They aren’t. Federal judges are wrong all the time, especially on technical stuff.
Unless you think Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are correct just by cirtue of being SCJs.
So there’s a few things to this: AR15 platform rifles are semi automatic, NOT automatic. So they are not weapons of war in that they do not have the capability of military long guns.
Besides that, you cannot ban any specific capability of an AR15 without infringing on the 2nd amendment. There are civilian rifles of all kinds that individually have higher magazine capacity, larger more powerful caliber bullets, higher muzzle velocity, that shoot more rounds per minute, that can shoot farther, that can handle better indoors, etc etc etc ad nauseum. There is NOTHING unique or special about AR15s.
And beyond all that, the 2nd amendment is *expressly and incontrovertibly ABOUT weapons of war*. The people that argue it’s not about self defense and only talking about regulated militias are expressly arguing it’s to protect military analogs.
Brett Cavanaugh: “Hold my beer. Wait, I meant hold my beer can after I chug this light lager and vote to overturn this.”
Well, seeing as the Second Amendment states that a militia, and by extension arms, are necessary for the security of a free state, one could argue that only military grade weapons are permissible for citizens to own, ie, full auto M16s (not semi auto AR-15s), rocket launchers, etc. The Federal courts actually interpreted it that way back in the 1930s when they banned sawed-off shotguns, as they had no practical military usage.
The whole this gun that gun argument is so old really. If you want them, take Scotus because everything else is opinion and unenforceable. I’ve had my ARs for 20 years or more, I’ll have them 20 more and pass them on when I die. And you can’t stop it.
If you go on r/canada you’ll hear about how everyone is using AR-15s to kill raccoons and coyotes on their properties
Small ankle knives and handguns are also ‘weapons of war’
ffs, why are we listening to idiots who know nothing about guns?
Anyone think it’s a ploy to get it before the SJC so they’ll blank check everything including nukes?
I don’t trust the judicial anymore.
Okay, then police officers shouldn’t have them either.
ummm…not a trump appointed one + thomas and/or alito.
Semi-auto weapons aren’t “weapons of war.” Which is all an AR-15 is. A small caliber semi-automatic rifle that’s been designed to appeal to CoD larpers and Gravy SEAL’s. It doesn’t function any differently than hundreds of other firearms.
It just looks “military” because of its target audience. There’s not a nation on Earth that would carry a civilian style AR-15 into war and expect to win against a properly equipped military.
This will go to the supreme court and be insta-ruled and any future attacks on the AR-15 will be dead on arrival.
Why they would push this with the current SCOTUS is beyond me.
It is so fascinating to watch the tribes cling to these losing issues when they know people don’t support them. Republicans need to stop trying to ban abortion and Democrats need to stop trying to ban firearms.
I somewhat feel that choosing which arms you are allowed to bear, seems like you may be infringing on the right to bear arms.
So land to air defence missles are g.t.g.?
Except the 2A isn’t about self defense, or even hunting. The main point behind the 2A was basically a “worst case scenario” button where if for instance, the American government went against the will of the vast majority of the population, said government wouldn’t be able to function within the population. Basically it’s the final check in the checks and balances. Of course is it a good idea? That’s for you to decide.
This is BS. They aren’t even issued to military, ever, and haven’t been used in war. There are even more powerful rifles than the AR-15. The Supreme Court will strike this down. It’s basically a show in election season.
So are computers
Ha-ha. Seriously. The quiet part said out loud.
i don’t care what gun you have, i just want people to clear a very high bar to own it, and have some level of upkeep and accountability to keep owning it. Kinda like a car.. if the car registered to you kills someone the cops will have questions.
As a progressive who really only diverges with most leftists on the second amendment, this distinction always seems pretty useless unless the argument provides specific details of what the key differences are.
It’s not caliber, it’s not rate-of-fire, it’s not magazine capacity… All of those elements can be achieved with other firearms available to the civilian market, and many of them aren’t what most people would think of when they think of weapons like the AR platform.
The only things I can imagine being viable arguments are methods of operation and cycling, like gas-operated reloading. But even then, you’d be hard-pressed to find an element that encompasses all firearms into one category, and demonstrating why something like that confers a level of lethality that isn’t achievable with other systems would be tricky.
If someone can chime in and fill in the blanks for me, I’d appreciate it. It’s always hard to talk about this subject with other leftists, because there’s this knee-jerk reaction when it comes to gun control. The problem is, leftists are never going to have sophisticated arguments about this topic unless they let themselves be challenged.
And that’s why they’re protected under 2a.
Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.
I can’t read the article due to a paywall but AR 15’s are just rifles. There are plenty of rifles that aren’t AR 15s, they just HAPPEN to be the pattern the us army uses. For civilians it’s just one example of a semi auto rifle. Banning the AR 15 just means people will switch to one of the many other patterns of semi auto rifles. FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU WANT TO BAN, IMO ban handguns and large capacity magazines or heavily tax the sale of guns in general.
Banning the AR 15 is like banning blue cars but not cars, IT DOES NOTHING.
Not all judges are smart
This just in: Weapons are used to kill people
Every weapon is a weapon of war if your at war
Can someone explain how an AR-15 can be considered a weapon of war but other semi-auto rifles aren’t?
1. Opinion piece
2. No reason to accept this even if it was “confirmed” as it would be overruled by a higher court.
This is factually incorrect, though.
A semiautomatic weapon is not what soldiers use. They use automatic weapons. And just because something is used by military doesn’t mean civilians should never own one or that the “civilian” alternatives aren’t much safer.
Handguns are used for more often than AR-15s for murders in the US. Why isn’t this judge talking about those?
Genuinely, does any of this matter if we don’t consider changes to the second amendment? I’m personally pro-2a, but I’m also pro democracy. If it’s the will of the people to restrict guns, I’ll deal with it – but at least do it right, please.
The only “weapons of war” not fielded by any army at scale by any nation in any war.
Americans can own weapons of war, so this is a non issue.
The definition of a machine gun is a legal term not a practical one. The select fire mechanism is overly pedantic. In most situations a trained soldier would not want to nor be allowed to use the rapid fire modes because it’s a waste a precious resources.
With that in mind, an off the shelf ar15 is absolutely a machine gun in terms of practicality.
Lawyers and lawmakers could easily redefine the item properly so it could be restricted properly again.
And it doesn’t matter if it’s used in fewer shootings, it is still used in some of them when it could be more properly regulated.
-ar15 owner