View Full Version : Can we make a legal argument for AR's?

03-03-2007, 8:32 PM
Can we make a winning legal argument for AR ownership? I have been reading and rereading Penal Code Sections 12275 – 12278. There are a couple of parts that has caught my interest that I want to run by you folks.

In the declaration paragraph of Penal Code 12275 the intent of the Legislature is not to outlaw rifles that have legal and legitimate purposes.

“12275.5 (a) ……..It is not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sport or recreational activities.”

Can we make a legal argument that specific AR-15 style rifles can be legitimate for competition shooting, specifically multi-gun matches at IPSC events? In every other state where AR-15s are legal, this style of rifle dominates the sport. I don’t think there is an expert out there that can claim that a mini-14 or other California legal rife has any competitive ability when placed against an AR-15 style gun in an action shooting match.

Additionally, there are AR-15 style rifles out there that are built specifically for the competition community. The one that comes to the top of my head are JP Rifles. As a point of fact, the first paragraph on the JP Rifles web site states the following:

“This new design represents the culmination of years of experience on the part of the JP design team and the input of many experienced shooters. I can honestly say that there is no other competing rifle remotely like it in terms of quality, features or performance, regardless of price. Ask any of the pro-level shooters on the JP team. The new CTR-02 has brought their performance up to a new level.”

This language clearly says that their rifles are built for competition. I think if we go through all of the features of the JP Riles we could make a list of “whys” it is made specifically for competition and is impractical for military, police, terrorists, or other life taking groups. This is similar to STI pistols that work great on that range but no one in their right mind would use in Baghdad or in a bank robbery.

Another point is that I have learned that the DOJ has issued a memorandum stating that it is permissible for out of state competitive shooters to bring their AR-15s to a California based match. This memorandum is very peculiar because nowhere in the law does it exempt out of state shooters from brining in their guns for a match. There are so many arguments you can make from this memo that I am going to leave that for later.

Lastly, in Section 12276.1 (3) there is some language that may also be helpful for the argument of competitive AR-15s. This Section notes that the DOJ must create a program to exempt competitive pistols that may be considered an “assault weapon” otherwise. I don’t know if a good lawyer can make the argument that that the DOJ should make this for rifles too. It might be a stretch but I think it shows a thought process that although it may look, feel, and taste like an assault weapon it may actually be a legitimate rifle used for competition.

So, please, anyone out there want to take a stab at this?

03-03-2007, 8:54 PM
The idea that an AR15 does not have a "legitimate" sporting purpose is ridiculous. They do not care to "protect" the sanctity of firearms that are used for sporting purposes - they are trying to ban any guns they can and the ARs and AKs are easy pickings. Shotguns, one of the guns that were designed for "sporting" purposes are used in more homicides in this country every year than all rifles combined, let alone "Assault Weapons", which according to the FBI were used in about 1/4 of 1% of homicides commited by firearms in 2005. The only reason they even discuss "sporting" weapons is to soften their position and try to appear as if they are passing "common sense" legislation - and to get the Elmer Fudd support.

03-04-2007, 12:06 AM
In this state and this federal district, you're not going to find a judge with much sympathy. I'm not saying that you can't show a preponderance of evidence - I'm just saying you'll be ignored for now.

Also, there is a political argument that we shouldn't walk into the trap of even recognizing the "sporting purposes" line of reasoning. The 2A is not about sport, unless you consider defense of Human Rights and order sport. Sadly, the 9th Circuit is a 2A free zone for right now. That's not true in other large areas of the US and is not likely to remain true here over the long haul.


03-04-2007, 12:22 AM
To decide if an AR15 has a legal "Sporting Purpose" we must first define what a "Sporting Purpose".

What the CA DoJ has done is apply a conditional operator to be referenced in the testing if something should be legal or not, but the conditional operator they use is not defined. So how do you compare something that do not exist to determine to a rifle to determine its legality?

They could of said "cheese spooling space rocket" instead of "sporting purpose" and it wouldn't change anything at all because neither "cheese spooling space rocket" and "sporting purpose" are quantifiable definions that we can test a rifle with.

03-04-2007, 12:37 AM
We don't want to get thm to start thinking haveing a sporting purpose is what should make a gun legal. The constitution and the fact that theres no real evidence to show gun control does anything should be our platform.

03-04-2007, 7:25 AM
My FAL build will incorporate a 5 rd fixed mag, should make an excellent deer rifle. Can't think of a more legitimate use for any firearm.

03-04-2007, 10:02 PM
The 2nd Amendment. :rolleyes: