Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Hi there... Can you please quickly check to make sure your email address is up to date here? Just in case we need to reach out to you or you lose your password. Muchero thanks!

7th Circuit - Assault Rifles Not Protected by the 2nd

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Nov 11, 2023.

  1. surfn1080

    surfn1080 Premium Member

    2,097
    323
    328
    Sep 26, 2008
    Looks like the Supreme Court will do its job again.
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  2. surfn1080

    surfn1080 Premium Member

    2,097
    323
    328
    Sep 26, 2008
    Is not the largest mass shooting on a school campus done with two handguns?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  3. ridgetop

    ridgetop GC Hall of Fame

    2,129
    737
    1,848
    Aug 4, 2020
    Top of the ridge
    I agree but making decisions based upon emotional response is just simply bad policy. It’s bad policy for a family, a school, a company and certainly a nation.
     
  4. helix

    helix VIP Member

    7,349
    6,786
    2,998
    Apr 3, 2007
    "Dangerous and unusual" weapons are what has historically has been restricted. Rocket launchers are not only unusual but tend to fit into that dangerous category because explosives by nature are far less discriminatory in their destruction than bullets.

    Tyranny vs legitimacy is usually decided after the fact as the product of who wins and gets to control the narrative. Because the colonists won, they were labeled revolutionaries and the British tyrants. Had they lost, it would have been a failed insurrection and the British merely carrying out their duties as the governing authority.
     
  5. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    8,754
    1,650
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    Indeed rockets are less discriminatory than guns, but 1) “dangerous”could apply to any gun, and 2) automatic guns are less discriminatory than handguns, so a limiting principle isn’t specified by “dangerous and unusual”.

    Here’s Scalia from Heller interpreting Miller:

    We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.[Footnote 25]”

    And here he notes a connection to the dangerous and usual language:

    “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” ”*



    *DC v Heller is the only USSC decision that I’ve ever read, so I feel like I really need to cite it every chance I get. :emoji_sweat_smile:
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  6. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,627
    2,872
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    WaPo with a long study on AR-15 effects. Have not read yet

     
  7. homer

    homer GC Hall of Fame

    2,783
    871
    2,078
    Nov 2, 2015

    AR15 comes in several calibers. I think the most common are 224, 7.62, and 5.56.

    Curious if the caliber will be included in the study?

    AR-15 Calibers For Your Next Build
     
  8. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,627
    2,872
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    No idea. Have no expertise
     
  9. helix

    helix VIP Member

    7,349
    6,786
    2,998
    Apr 3, 2007
    Most AR-15s are overwhelmingly chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO/.223 Remington (or the hybrid .223 Wylde). There are other options such as 300 blackout or 6.5 Grendel, but for the most part the standard offering is what you will find. 7.62x51mm NATO or .308 requires stepping up to a large frame receiver, commonly known as an AR-10, and also opens up options such as 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.8 SPC, etc.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. ridgetop

    ridgetop GC Hall of Fame

    2,129
    737
    1,848
    Aug 4, 2020
    Top of the ridge
    The 300 blkouts, 6.5 Grendel, 6. 5 creedmore and 6.8 Spc have become very popular amongst hunters. I love the low recoil of the Grendel ( which specially for the grandkids) and have suppressed two 300 blkouts to use for hog hunting. My ears thank me!
    (Once you hunt suppressed it is hard to ever want to go back!)
     
    • Like Like x 2