AR-15 aren't inherently military admits government.

[a73elkyss]

Sorry if a dupe. Did I just hear that the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military.

Source: You are being redirected...

 

[greencobra]

good that's been cleared up, lol.

but the damage has already been done as far as public opinion goes. i don't think that's ever going to change. i've been known to be wrong before, so.....

 

[amm5061]

This is like a triple dupe.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Could be good. Could be bad.

Good: Not military - no arguments that we have military weapons.

Bad: 2A revolved around military weapons.

Personally, I don't think it will have much bearing one way or the other.

 

[Tallen]

Bad: 2A revolved around military weapons.

Terrible news! Everyone must have their semiautomatics converted to include a happy switch. It's a dreadful imposition but I suppose I will comply.

 

[greencobra]

This is like a triple dupe.

triple dupe! sweet! the grand prize, every member has to paypal the op $2.

 

[StevieP]

They're "military style" and that's bad enough.

 

[a73elkyss]

Sorry if a dupe.

This is like a triple dupe.

C'mon man. I guess my first four words were not adequate for some people. But hell, it's good to know that the duplicate police are right on top of things to watch out for me, my family, and the rest of the world. Thank you very much for your considerable effort, contributions, and kind thoughts. You 'da man!

 

[Brewer]

Bad: 2A revolved around military weapons.

In what way? Scalia's majority opinion in Heller says the 2A protection includes non-military weapons...

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

...and supports self-defense outside the militia.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to theSecond Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

 

[EddieCoyle]

DOJ, Second Amendment Foundation Reach Settlement In Defense Distributed Lawsuit