Federal Court: Semi-Autos Indistinguishable From M-16s
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 4 months ago
“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.”
Wow. I wish I could pull the trigger 300-500 times per minute for a full minute. I’d vie for book of world records. Move over, Jerry Miculek. The boss is on the block.
But … there’s that sticky issue of legal definitions (like the single pull of the trigger being the difference between semi-autos and machine guns). I guess judges don’t have to worry about things like legalities.
On July 29, 2019 at 12:10 am, Longbow said:
The federal Government restricted M-16s, thus making them “not in common use”, therefor it is lawful to restrict them, because they are “not in common use”.
You see? It all makes perfect sense.
Don’t try to confuse me with a bunch of facts… I know how I FEEL!
On July 29, 2019 at 5:39 am, Matt said:
“I guess judges don’t have to worry about things like legalities.”
Seems all too common. Who cares about legality when activism is at stake?
On July 29, 2019 at 6:36 am, Carl B. said:
Another “assault” rifle mass murder, this time in gun-controlled Mexifornia. The Fed Leviathan will be coming for our semi-autos folks. It’s inevitable.
On July 29, 2019 at 7:14 am, Stones said:
Lets examine this further. A semi automatic is indistinguishable from an M-16, therefore Heller doesnt apply to an AR15. I would say the exact opposite. An AR15 is indistinguishable from an M-16, therefore Heller applies to an M-16, making it in common use.
On July 29, 2019 at 8:45 am, George 1 said:
Not in common use? Isn’t the ar15 the most common rifle out there?
On July 29, 2019 at 9:29 am, Drake said:
Farmer John’s fowling piece was indistinguishable from a British Army Brown Bess musket.
On July 30, 2019 at 4:36 pm, June J said:
Federal judges indistinguishable from tyrants.
On July 31, 2019 at 11:27 am, Scott in Phx said:
Both are fire”arms”.
Arms are what is protected by the 2A.
Therefor both semi-auto and FA capable fire”arms” are protected.
Even Heller says all firearms are arms. And Scalia’s comments about “M16’s and the like” is dicta and irrelevant to the core holding so this judge shouldn’t have cited that as support for his ruling.
He needed to develop a rational why FA fire”arms” are not “arms” as protected by the 2A.
But that would have been hard so the gun hating judge simply made up a reason for his holding.