Archive for the 'AR-15s' Category

This would never have occurred to me. If I feel that my BCG is malfunctioning, I just buy another. Rebuilding the one I’ve got never occurred to me. Then again, I’ve never been to School of the American Rifle.

Dean Weingarten has a good find at Ammoland.

Judge Eduardo Ramos, the U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York,  has issued an Opinion & Order that a ban on stun guns is constitutional. A New York State law prohibits the private possession of stun guns and tasers; a New York City law prohibits the possession and selling of stun guns. Judge Ramos has ruled these laws do not infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Let’s briefly revisit statements made by Justice Roberts concerning the authority of the court.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday warned about a rising number of threats to the judiciary’s independence, including calls for violence against judges and “dangerous” suggestions by elected officials to disregard court rulings they disagree with.

He didn’t just come out with this statement once, but felt obligated to reiterate his concerns in March of this year.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said in the statement.

Make no mistake. He’s saying the same thing regardless of how the caution is worded. This is remarkable since the NY court decision is clearly in contravention of the Caetano ruling. Let’s quote.

The Court has held that “the 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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 750, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N.E.3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.”

Id., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller ‘s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends … to … arms … that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U.S., at 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U.S., at 627, 128 S.Ct. 2783 ; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ “). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U.S., at 624–625, 128 S.Ct. 2783.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Thus, the hearing was granted. This is their conclusion.

The lower court’s ill treatment of Heller cannot stand. The reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense. The Su preme Judicial Court suggested that Caetano could have simply gotten a firearm to defend herself. 470 Mass., at 783, 26 N. E. 3d, at 695. But the right to bear other weap ons is “no answer” to a ban on the possession of protected arms. Heller, 554 U. S., at 629. Moreover, a weapon is an effective means of self-defense only if one is prepared to use it, and it is presumptuous to tell Caetano she should have been ready to shoot the father of her two young children if she wanted to protect herself. Courts should not be in the business of demanding that citizens use more force for self-defense than they are comfortable wielding.

Countless people may have reservations about using deadly force, whether for moral, religious, or emotional reasons—or simply out of fear of killing the wrong person. See Brief for Arming Women Against Rape & Endanger ment as Amicus Curiae 4–5. “Self-defense,” however, “is a basic right.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767. I am not pre pared to say that a State may force an individual to choose between exercising that right and following her con science, at least where both can be accommodated by a weapon already in widespread use across the Nation.

A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsi est of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the conse quences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self defense. See Pet. for Cert. 14.

If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

This was a Per Curiam judgment, with the citations above belonging to Alito, with Thomas concurring. Lyle Denniston writes that “The Second Amendment expands, but maybe not by much.” I disagree.

The criteria was clear. Stun guns are “in common use for lawful purposes.” Thus, they are protected by the second amendment as the supreme court found in Heller and McDonald. For a weapon to be disallowed, it must be dangerous and unusual (according to the decision). Alito found that stun guns were not unusual.

Neither are AR-15s for that matter. Yet the fourth circuit concluded that a ban on them didn’t violate second amendment rights. That case is currently before the supreme court, having been redistributed for conference nine times (Snope v Brown). The supreme court is apparently too cowardly to take this case up and declare once and for all that AR-15s are not dangerous and unusual.

[Here I understand that other things might be going on. Thomas and Alito might know that they don’t have the support of the other justices, and don’t want bad precedent to be established. Even the supposed “libertarian” justice Gorsuch was heard suggesting in oral arguments on the bump stock ban case that congress ought to make them illegal.]

How ironic is it that the court system is allowing an inferior court to completely ignore its ruling in Caetano (or at least, the inferior court judge doesn’t care what Caetano says, and that judge certainly knew about the precedent), and that the court is allowing the fourth circuit to contravene its rulings in Heller, McDonald and Bruen by declaring an AR-15 ban constitutional, while striking out at the executive for suggesting that the court system needs reform?

What’s not surprising is that the executive might need to ignore the courts. What’s ironic is that not even the courts pay attention to the courts. They can’t even get their own house in order. Openly flouting supreme court precedent by the inferior courts is about as disorderly and vulgar as one can imagine.

Roberts has no right to criticize the executive until he cleans house. It should have been embarrassing to have issued those statements.

The Snope AR ban case has been punted into next year by SCOTUS. Cowardly court. "Yeh, it's sad, believe me, Missy, When you're born to be a sissy Without the vim and verve. But I could show my prowess, be a lion not a mou-ess If I only had the nerve."

— CaptainsJournal (@BrutusMaximus50) March 12, 2025

Wisco sends this deep dive along into early experimental magazines for the M-16 / AR-15. He also sends this along for those of you who are interested in doing more research for the rest of us.

Source.

A 1-8×30 variable magnification direct view optic built by Vortex Optics subsidiary Sheltered Wings, the XM157 incorporates advanced technologies such as a laser rangefinder, aiming lasers, environmental sensors, ballistic solver, compass and a digital display overlay, all of which are designed to “increase the probability of hit and decrease the time to engage” with a computerized assist, according to the Army’s fiscal 2025 budget request.

The XM157 also features wireless connectivity that will purportedly allow it to integrate with heads-up displays like the Army’s current Enhanced Night Vision Goggle-Binocular, or ENVG-B, and future Integrated Visual Augmentation System, or IVAS, do-it-all goggles, allowing soldiers to survey the battlefield from cover using a live video feed from their weapon optic.

“The XM7 with mounted XM157 demonstrated a low probability of completing one 72-hour wartime mission without incurring a critical failure,” the Operational Test and Evaluation report adds.

Despite the documented issues detailed in DOT&E report, the Army is still plowing ahead …

But of course they are.

Hmm, let’s see. A brand new ceramic cartridge with essentially no real logistical chain to speak of, chambers that will now see 85,000 psi, and a new optic that can’t go three days in the field without malfunctions.

Well, maybe some general got rich off of this boondoggle.

I’ve told y’all what we need to do, and I think most of you agreed. Issue fighters a range finder, get a decent LPVO and spend a lot of range time, switch over the barrel and BCG in existing M4s to 6mm ARC (and for heaven’s sake, ditch the 14″ barrel and use an 18″ barrel), and use Amend2 magazines because in my experience they work well with 6mm ARC.

Now see there, I didn’t even make millions of dollars fixing the problems for you.

@PeteHegseth

Get a decent LPVO, switch over the barrel and BCG in existing M4s to 6mm ARC (and for heaven's sake, ditch the 14" barrel and use an 18" barrel), and use Amend2 magazines because in my experience they work well with 6mm ARC.https://t.co/ViFili9aMq

— CaptainsJournal (@BrutusMaximus50) February 12, 2025

I found this video informative.

This is an oldie from American Rifleman (via WiscoDave).

From the time I came to Vietnam in May 1967 to date, I have been on 82 patrols as an infantry unit com­mander and have been shot at on 38 separate occasions. From this experi­ence I have several observations which may interest readers of THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN, especially those who may be slated for combat duty in this area. The standard U.S. infantry rifle in Vietnam is the M16. There have been stories of men getting killed because their M16s jammed in battle. My ad­vice is to ignore these tales. I have carried at different times two M16s as well as two of the stubby little CAR-15s. The CAR-15 is simply an M16 with a short, carbine-length barrel and tele­scoping stock. With these four arms I have never experienced a jam in 18 months of combat. If given the same care as a .22 rimfire semi-automatic rifle, the M16 will not fail.

[ … ]

I have knocked out Communists at ranges from 50 feet to 750 meters and have yet to use full-automatic fire. There are two reasons why I stress semi-auto­matic fire. First of all, it is just waste­ful of ammunition. The average G.I. carries from 10 to 20 18-round maga­zines (21 rounds can be squeezed into the M16 magazine, but overfilling can cause jams. One can fire off 20 maga­zines of ammunition in from 5 to 10 minutes, but then there are likely to be problems.

You can read the rest at American Rifleman.

Of course the M-16 / M4 and AR-15 variants today are good rifles, the current suite of AR-15s even better (in most cases, assuming you don’t buy a “rack” or budget AR).

Here is another image that’s helpful.

All of the initial changes were made by the Army against the advice of Eugene Stoner, and all of the changes you see in the image above were made back to what Eugene Stoner had originally designed.

It remains today an awesome weapon. Personally, I don’t think the DoD should ever have gone with the new ceramic cartridge design. The only change that should have been considered is a re-barrel to 6 mm ARC. It is a awesome cartridge – I know from hunting with it.

John Moses Browing and Eugene Stoner are the greatest weapons designers America ever produced.

Well, it is Illinois, and the circuit court may ride roughshod over this decision like they did Judge McGlynn’s earlier decision. Here is the decision.

For all the good I think is in here, I still think he (and virtually all other judges and justices) miss the point about the second amendment existing for the amelioration of tyranny. Personal self defense is a cleaned up, sanitized version of the 2A meant to make the 2A more palatable for the inside-the-beltway types.

Self-defense must include defense against the tyranny of the state to be complete.

Eh, whatever. I don’t really care much about what you call it. I think the NFA, GCA and Hughes Amendment are all unconstitutional anyway.

Like one commenter said, call it “Arms,” or “Bearable Arms.”

“Shall not be infringed.”

If you want it for plinking, that’s fine. If you want it for hunting, that’s fine. If you want to keep it a gun safe for collecting, that’s fine. If you want it for the amelioration of tyranny, that’s fine. If you want to call it an AR-15, that’s fine. If you want to call it a MSR, that’s fine. If you want to call it your pet dog spot, that’s fine. Because rights. Not permissions.