Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2041  
Old 06-12-2021, 10:00 AM
sonofeugene's Avatar
sonofeugene sonofeugene is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,419
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I prefer to not use the word "assault" at all. It's simply an AR15 or AK47 or.....if asked what AR means, I say Armalite Rifle.
__________________
Let us not pray to be sheltered from dangers but to be fearless when facing them. - Rabindranath Tagore

A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it. - Rabindranath Tagore

Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhaur
Reply With Quote
  #2042  
Old 06-12-2021, 4:30 PM
Supersapper's Avatar
Supersapper Supersapper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 595
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Also, those are "assault rifles" not "assault weapons".

An "assault weapon", in English, means "a weapon used to assault", which doesn't even have to be a firearm.
I don't even like the term "assault rifle" because even that is inaccurate. That term, broken down, is a rifle used in an assault, with no clarification on the rifle or the assault. If I buttstroke someone with a BB gun, does that make it an "assault rifle"?

The M4, M16, AK47, AKM, AK74, FN-FAL, G36, etc etc are examples of "battle rifles", which is a term that has been used in the past by linguistically inclined folks and is far more accurately descriptive without the friggin' drama. These rifles are not allowed in the hands of civilians without the proper paperwork.

I know people like to equate the term "battle rifle" with things like M1 Garands, K98, M1903, etc etc, but the days of such weapons, lamentably for sure, is long past. The short carbine type rifles are what's used now, and they are used in actual military engagements, hence the appropriate application of the term "battle rifle".
__________________
Ask me about low cost Commander memberships to Frontsight!

--Walther P-38. Prefer Pre 1945
--Need S&W M19 grips, target hammer and target trigger. Will trade for powder or primers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
Don't attempt to inject common sense into an internet pissing contest.
Reply With Quote
  #2043  
Old 06-12-2021, 4:53 PM
cyphr02's Avatar
cyphr02 cyphr02 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 380
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supersapper View Post
I don't even like the term "assault rifle" because even that is inaccurate. That term, broken down, is a rifle used in an assault, with no clarification on the rifle or the assault. If I buttstroke someone with a BB gun, does that make it an "assault rifle"?

The M4, M16, AK47, AKM, AK74, FN-FAL, G36, etc etc are examples of "battle rifles", which is a term that has been used in the past by linguistically inclined folks and is far more accurately descriptive without the friggin' drama. These rifles are not allowed in the hands of civilians without the proper paperwork.

I know people like to equate the term "battle rifle" with things like M1 Garands, K98, M1903, etc etc, but the days of such weapons, lamentably for sure, is long past. The short carbine type rifles are what's used now, and they are used in actual military engagements, hence the appropriate application of the term "battle rifle".
Battle rifle doesn't work for M4/16, AKx, m1 carbine etc. because they use intermediate cartridges. M1, M1A, M14, M1903, FAL, G3 are considered battle rifles because they fire full power cartridges(7.62x51, .30-06, .303, 7mm, 8mm, etc.).
Reply With Quote
  #2044  
Old 06-12-2021, 7:19 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,361
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphr02 View Post
Battle rifle doesn't work for M4/16, AKx, m1 carbine etc. because they use intermediate cartridges. M1, M1A, M14, M1903, FAL, G3 are considered battle rifles because they fire full power cartridges(7.62x51, .30-06, .303, 7mm, 8mm, etc.).
But "Assault Weapons" are, by definition, "high powered", so clearly the 5.56 is more powerful than all of those.

The legislature (with a guaranteed court rubber stamp if challenged) could make that true by simply making it a law. You know, as objectively true as a law of physics, no matter what physics says about kinetic energy. Anyone who says otherwise risks being told they're ignorant by FGG.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 06-12-2021 at 7:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2045  
Old 06-12-2021, 9:34 PM
MountainLion's Avatar
MountainLion MountainLion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tarzana
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supersapper View Post
I don't even like the term "assault rifle" because even that is inaccurate. That term, broken down, is a rifle used in an assault, with no clarification on the rifle or the assault.
Sorry, but that's quite wrong. The term "assault rifle" is pretty accurately defined in gun circles, and I think you'll get very wide agreement on the definition. To a large extent, the Stg44 is the pattern, and please note that the English phrase "assault rifle" is nothing but a literal translation of the German word "Sturmgewehr". It is a
  • military rifle (fired from the shoulder),
  • select fire, so it can get a lot of lead downrange fast,
  • uses an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than typical military handgun calibers such as 9mm or 38SP, but less powerful than the rounds used in battle rifles (such as 30-06 or the 8mm Mauser),
  • physically relatively light and short compared to a battle rifle,
  • uses quickly replaceable and convenient box magazines (so it is easy and fast to reload),
  • the barrel is relatively low mounted, in line with the stock, to reduce muzzle rise in full auto,
  • and is typically operated with a pistol grip, which is needed to stabilize the shorter rifle with the low-mount barrel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
But "Assault Weapons" are, by definition, "high powered", so clearly the 5.56 is more powerful than all of those.
Interesting. Once again you are claiming that there is a definition of assault weapon. Above, you claimed there was no definition of assault weapon, and I pointed out that user CandR claimed there was. Now you say there is one?

Quote:
Anyone who says otherwise risks being told they're ignorant by FGG.
I don't think we need help from FGG to determine that.
__________________
meow
Reply With Quote
  #2046  
Old 06-12-2021, 11:20 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,361
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainLion View Post
Once again you are claiming that there is a definition of assault weapon.
A "legal" definition is the language of law, not English. Did you miss the posts where I explained the distinction to you?

The court can define, for example, 1/0 all they want. Clearly whatever domain that "definition" exists in does not overlap with reality.

You can force me to agree with you, but you'll have to use threat of violence or incarceration.

The fact that you have to do so speaks volumes.

Incidentally, I noticed you failed to quote this

Quote:
The legislature (with a guaranteed court rubber stamp if challenged) could make that true by simply making it a law. You know, as objectively true as a law of physics, no matter what physics says about kinetic energy.
Why?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #2047  
Old 06-12-2021, 11:30 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,361
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Another example:

If the courts define 11 rounds in a G17 as "large capacity", despite 11 being demonstrably (and significantly) fewer than the standard capacity of a G17 magazine, they can certainly define "high power" to include the 5.56mm cartridge, despite the fact there are very few center fire rifle rounds with lower powerfactor or kinetic energy.

Are we supposed to accept that "definition", just because the courts say so?

Beyond threat of force or incarceration, of course.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 06-13-2021 at 9:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2048  
Old 06-13-2021, 12:59 AM
GregW948 GregW948 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 299
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I HAVE A QUESTION... WHY WHEN AN AR-15 IS IN A POLICE CRUISER IT IS CALLED A 'PATROL RIFLE' WHEN WE THE POPULACE HAVE THEM THEY ARE DEEMED 'ASSAULT RIFLES' ?
Reply With Quote
  #2049  
Old 06-13-2021, 1:12 AM
cyphr02's Avatar
cyphr02 cyphr02 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 380
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW948 View Post
I HAVE A QUESTION... WHY WHEN AN AR-15 IS IN A POLICE CRUISER IT IS CALLED A 'PATROL RIFLE' WHEN WE THE POPULACE HAVE THEM THEY ARE DEEMED 'ASSAULT RIFLES' ?
social contract & the monopoly of violence entrusted to the state... oh and market research pitches to get you to buy their brand because they call it a patrol, because clearly it stands apart from that tacticool stuff, this is serious working man patrol gucci you need to get.
Reply With Quote
  #2050  
Old 06-13-2021, 2:55 AM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,988
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainLion View Post
Sorry, but that's quite wrong. The term "assault rifle" is pretty accurately defined in gun circles, and I think you'll get very wide agreement on the definition. To a large extent, the Stg44 is the pattern, and please note that the English phrase "assault rifle" is nothing but a literal translation of the German word "Sturmgewehr". It is a
  • military rifle (fired from the shoulder),
  • select fire, so it can get a lot of lead downrange fast,
  • uses an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than typical military handgun calibers such as 9mm or 38SP, but less powerful than the rounds used in battle rifles (such as 30-06 or the 8mm Mauser),
  • physically relatively light and short compared to a battle rifle,
  • uses quickly replaceable and convenient box magazines (so it is easy and fast to reload),
  • the barrel is relatively low mounted, in line with the stock, to reduce muzzle rise in full auto,
  • and is typically operated with a pistol grip, which is needed to stabilize the shorter rifle with the low-mount barrel.


Interesting. Once again you are claiming that there is a definition of assault weapon. Above, you claimed there was no definition of assault weapon, and I pointed out that user CandR claimed there was. Now you say there is one?


I don't think we need help from FGG to determine that.
An assault rifle in a strict sense is basically just a select-fire rifle chambered for an intermediate cartridge that is reloaded using detachable magazines with large capacities like those for machine pistols. StG-44 was the first one.
After WWII, the term was also applied quite often to similar rifles chambered for full-power cartridges (Jeff Cooper often called them "sturmgewehr"; you have rifles officially designated StG-58, Stgw-57; etc.), although eventually a colloquialism, "battle rifle", emerged for the latter. Colloquially, the term has, in the civilian world, also been frequently applied to semi-automatic versions of the same designs, and similarly configured semi-auto rifles. They don't, in either case, necessarily have to have a pistol grip, be all that light (or even all that short except in comparison to early semi-auto and bolt-action combat rifles), or have any particular relation of the barrel to the stock.

"Assault weapon" is not a technical term, but it is a colloquialism for more modern military-pattern semi-auto firearms that emerged well before the gun control crowd latched onto it (I have a bunch of old gun magazines that can be used to prove this).
Reply With Quote
  #2051  
Old 06-13-2021, 6:37 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 273
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I kinda feel like Benetiz’ decision lays a bit of a trap for the 9th circuit. In it, he indisputably establishes that 1) what are termed ‘assault weapons’ are in broad, common use; 2) that they are NOT equivalent to a fully automatic ‘military’ weapon; 3) that they are VERY well matched (ideally even) to core 2nd amendment activities (self defense, hunting, sporting use, AND if there’s a call to support a militia in case of an state/national emergency); 4) the state provided NO objective data that they are uniquely dangerous among firearms (vast majority of gun homicides are with handguns); and 5) the state provided NO objective data that after the decades of the AW ban being in place in CA that it actually accomplished ANY effect towards their goal.

So we all know the 9th Circuit will do contortions of law and precedent to arrive at their pre-determined desired outcome (witness the twisting of Heller in their Young en banc ruling). So to arrive at that outcome for Miller, they would have to basically state that ANY semi-auto firearm is uniquely ‘dangerous’ (which would be clearly in conflict with common use doctrine), and that there is NO burden of proof on the state to demonstrate their regulations actually accomplish their stated goal (which would expose the masquerade that they’ve been using rational basis all along). Both of those positions would be tossing up a softball for appeal to SCOTUS.

Last edited by dawgcasa; 06-13-2021 at 7:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2052  
Old 06-13-2021, 7:56 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,361
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
They don't, in either case, necessarily have to have a pistol grip, be all that light (or even all that short except in comparison to early semi-auto and bolt-action combat rifles), or have any particular relation of the barrel to the stock.
His bizarre analysis of what a "pistol grip" is for (in conjunction with this ridiculous statement about the position of the barrel) certainly piqued my curiosity, since the pistol grip's vaunted utility in controlling the weapon when "firing from the hip" is clearly laughably stupid.

I can only assume those that think the legal "definition" (scare quotes intentional) "assault weapon" make sense are just now realizing how stupid they sound when they parrot Feinstein et al who clearly have so much background in firearm history from watching action movies.

I guess this is where they are trying to rationalize regulations based on the position of the web of the thumb in relation to the barrel (or action, which can be less clearly defined).

Ironically, they don't seem to understand that a fin grip actually puts your thumb in a better position for precision shooting. It is clear none of them have spent any real time training with actual firearms at an actual range with an actual instructor.

I think between ML and FGG you are seeing exactly the sorts of legal contortions the 9th is going to make when defending the complete idiocy coming out of the CA legislature.

The pistol grip, IMO, is primarily for ergonomics when manipulating a rifle in close quarters. It has nothing to do with either "accuracy when shooting from the hip" or related to the "position of the barrel relative to the stock".

Thanks for the heads up; I look forwards to seeing that ludicrous notion relating the "position of the barrel" (or even more hilariously, "stabilization of a weapon with a shorter barrel"? WTF? where on earth did that come from?) to dangerous and unusual lethality in a filing soon, since arguably a conventional stock could actually stabilize a weapon "with a low mount barrel" better in full auto, though extremely uncomfortable to shoot (again the true purpose of the pistol grip being ergonomics).

Or maybe spraying inaccurately and indiscriminately is actually "safer", at least by a newly minted legal "definition" of the word "safe", coming soon to a court near you. I can't wait to argue whether or not the word "safe" has a "definition" or not, with respect to the law, considering that gem of a quote from the VP in my sig. In addition, I simply do not understand the nexus between the "deadliness" of a "pistol grip" with respect to better control of a weapon or ergonomics. It defies logic. Real logic, of course, not "legal logic" which has literally no constraints on internal consistency or even fact.

No, legislation regarding "assault weapons" is entirely optics and/or based on cosmetics.

Finally:

Quote:
more powerful than typical military handgun calibers such as 9mm or 38SP,
This is pure comedy gold. What was the purpose of (entirely counter-factually) including the laughably vague and stupid term "military" if not for optics? Really? 38SP? Or was that satire? Or perhaps "military style" is more apt, as it is an even more ridiculously idiotic classification.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 06-13-2021 at 9:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2053  
Old 06-13-2021, 12:52 PM
Supersapper's Avatar
Supersapper Supersapper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 595
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainLion View Post
Sorry, but that's quite wrong. The term "assault rifle" is pretty accurately defined in gun circles, and I think you'll get very wide agreement on the definition. To a large extent, the Stg44 is the pattern, and please note that the English phrase "assault rifle" is nothing but a literal translation of the German word "Sturmgewehr". It is a
  • military rifle (fired from the shoulder),
  • select fire, so it can get a lot of lead downrange fast,
  • uses an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than typical military handgun calibers such as 9mm or 38SP, but less powerful than the rounds used in battle rifles (such as 30-06 or the 8mm Mauser),
  • physically relatively light and short compared to a battle rifle,
  • uses quickly replaceable and convenient box magazines (so it is easy and fast to reload),
  • the barrel is relatively low mounted, in line with the stock, to reduce muzzle rise in full auto,
  • and is typically operated with a pistol grip, which is needed to stabilize the shorter rifle with the low-mount barrel.
Actually, MountainLion, it's two words, "Sturm" and "gewehr". The German word "SturmGewehr", when broken down means "Storm (or attack) weapon" and was a moniker given to it by Hitler when he observed the demonstrations of it. It was not a brand name, like Schmiesser or Mauser. It was a descriptor.

The StG 44, is actually called the Schmeisser Machninepistole 44, or MP 44 for short. As I said, "Sturmgewehr" was given to it by Hitler.

The term "assault weapon" was given by the allies to describe this new type of carbine style rifle afterwords, when the Russians started the AK47 series. It is NOT a literal translation. I think the first use of the term assault rifle was about 1950.

My argument was not specifically against the historical use of assault weapon as a term, but against it's abuse by lefties to represent anything, especially when there is a specific distinction between military grade and civilian grade. That's why I don't like it. For posterity, let me outline it in more detail.

Since the term battle rifle was ORIGINALLY used to designate a military weapon (hence the term "battle"), I was mainly arguing that we should define the term more accurate to it's origin. In the interest of your point, I will mosify my position a bit.

Yes, battle rifle meant larger caliber rifles, but ones used in battle as well. I guess we could say that like the liberals, I'm redefining things, but I'm doing it with an eye for accuracy in language. Follow the logic:

Battle rifle: FN FAL, M1 Garand, M4, M16, M14, AK 47, AKM, AK 74, G36, Mosin Nagant, K98, etc. All used in warfare.

NON battle rifle: Mini 14, AR series, AK series, etc.

The specific distinction is this: Was the rifle adopted (or modified for) and used by a military for use, or potential use, in armed conflict? If so, then it's a battle rifle. If not, then it is not a battle rifle. That was where I was going.

You might ask: What about the M24 Sniper Rifle... it's just a Remington 700? True, but you can't own an M24 sniper system. You can own an M700. Same thing with an AR-15 or an M4. You can't own one, but you can own an AR series rifle.
__________________
Ask me about low cost Commander memberships to Frontsight!

--Walther P-38. Prefer Pre 1945
--Need S&W M19 grips, target hammer and target trigger. Will trade for powder or primers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
Don't attempt to inject common sense into an internet pissing contest.
Reply With Quote
  #2054  
Old 06-13-2021, 5:31 PM
MountainLion's Avatar
MountainLion MountainLion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tarzana
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supersapper View Post
The German word "SturmGewehr", when broken down means "Storm (or attack) weapon"
"Gewehr" mean rifle. Weapon would be "Waffe".

Quote:
The term "assault weapon" ... It is NOT a literal translation.
Correct. The literal translation of "Sturmgewehr" would be "assault rifle". As I said above.
__________________
meow
Reply With Quote
  #2055  
Old 06-13-2021, 6:10 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,054
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Quote:
more powerful than typical military handgun calibers such as 9mm or 38SP,

Quote:
This is pure comedy gold. What was the purpose of (entirely counter-factually) including the laughably vague and stupid term "military" if not for optics? Really? 38SP? Or was that satire? Or perhaps "military style" is more apt, as it is an even more ridiculously idiotic classification.
Au Contraire;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Special#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%C3%9...bellum#Origins

S&W developed the "38 S&W Special" cartridge, under contract with the US Gov Military. In 1898.

George Luger did the same with the 9mm parabellum. Which he developed as a MILITARY cartridge. He tried to sell the design to England and the US Governments. BEFORE it was contracted with the German NAVY in 1904. And the German ARMY in 1908.

YES, both of these over 100 yr old cartridges were and are MILITARY CARTRIDGES.
Reply With Quote
  #2056  
Old 06-13-2021, 6:12 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,361
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

The history of most cartridges in common use are from military; that doesn't mean they are used today in "military" use as if they are a special type of ammunition. Just about every single one. Are we seriously saying that the 6.5mm creedmore, or .223, for example, is suitable for civilian use while the 6.5 swede or 5.56mm is not?

Despite that US v Miller itself provides the "common use by infantry" test? What is the purpose of including the term "military" (or "military-style") as a dis-qualifier or a magical totem?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 06-13-2021 at 6:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2057  
Old 06-13-2021, 7:11 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,516
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphr02 View Post
Battle rifle doesn't work for M4/16, AKx, m1 carbine etc. because they use intermediate cartridges. M1, M1A, M14, M1903, FAL, G3 are considered battle rifles because they fire full power cartridges(7.62x51, .30-06, .303, 7mm, 8mm, etc.).
AR-10s felt extremely hurt that they were excluded
__________________
WingDings HQ Contributor - Lifetime

Quote:
Q is a Disinformation PsyOp to make the right look/sound crazy - Sgt J Beezy
Quote:
Deceit only gains leverage from cooperation - LBDamned
Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants
Quote:
It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's impossible to win an argument with a stupid person - Whitefang
Reply With Quote
  #2058  
Old 06-13-2021, 8:43 PM
TFA777 TFA777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 256
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
His bizarre analysis of what a "pistol grip" is for (in conjunction with this ridiculous statement about the position of the barrel) certainly piqued my curiosity, since the pistol grip's vaunted utility in controlling the weapon when "firing from the hip" is clearly laughably stupid.

I can only assume those that think the legal "definition" (scare quotes intentional) "assault weapon" make sense are just now realizing how stupid they sound when they parrot Feinstein et al who clearly have so much background in firearm history from watching action movies.

I guess this is where they are trying to rationalize regulations based on the position of the web of the thumb in relation to the barrel (or action, which can be less clearly defined).

Ironically, they don't seem to understand that a fin grip actually puts your thumb in a better position for precision shooting. It is clear none of them have spent any real time training with actual firearms at an actual range with an actual instructor.

I think between ML and FGG you are seeing exactly the sorts of legal contortions the 9th is going to make when defending the complete idiocy coming out of the CA legislature.

The pistol grip, IMO, is primarily for ergonomics when manipulating a rifle in close quarters. It has nothing to do with either "accuracy when shooting from the hip" or related to the "position of the barrel relative to the stock".

Thanks for the heads up; I look forwards to seeing that ludicrous notion relating the "position of the barrel" (or even more hilariously, "stabilization of a weapon with a shorter barrel"? WTF? where on earth did that come from?) to dangerous and unusual lethality in a filing soon, since arguably a conventional stock could actually stabilize a weapon "with a low mount barrel" better in full auto, though extremely uncomfortable to shoot (again the true purpose of the pistol grip being ergonomics).

Or maybe spraying inaccurately and indiscriminately is actually "safer", at least by a newly minted legal "definition" of the word "safe", coming soon to a court near you. I can't wait to argue whether or not the word "safe" has a "definition" or not, with respect to the law, considering that gem of a quote from the VP in my sig. In addition, I simply do not understand the nexus between the "deadliness" of a "pistol grip" with respect to better control of a weapon or ergonomics. It defies logic. Real logic, of course, not "legal logic" which has literally no constraints on internal consistency or even fact.

No, legislation regarding "assault weapons" is entirely optics and/or based on cosmetics.

Finally:



This is pure comedy gold. What was the purpose of (entirely counter-factually) including the laughably vague and stupid term "military" if not for optics? Really? 38SP? Or was that satire? Or perhaps "military style" is more apt, as it is an even more ridiculously idiotic classification.
The whole failing of SCOTUS is the invention of the 'rational basis' (along with Chevron deference... Congress must have had a rational basis for this law, it's thus presumptively lawful). It's created illogical lines of argument all over the place. The Obamacare penalty = tax being the most egrarious example.

Heller was clear on strict scrutiny but every circuit had ignored those clear instructions.

The Heller decision of 'dangerous and unusual' is however similarly fraught with illogical reasoning.

By definition all weapons are dangerous.

What's unusual? A gatling gun? A double barrel shotgun? An under over 2 caliber shotgun? What about that double shot 22 wmr revolver? Is that 'dangerous and unusual?' is a single shot pistol unusual?

Does an arm that's not common pre empt it's right to exist? So glock gen 6 can be banned cos they are not common?

Following 'common arms' logically, California is complying with 2A by banning all new handguns that are not yet common.

So while I'll take Heller as a 'win', in the bigger scheme of things it has as many failings as a lot of other anti gun rulings (Heller thus may protect the AR but won't protect the SCAR or ARX or next gen rifles / phased plasma cannons in the 40W range). IF Heller was clarified to say semi auto, bolt action, break top, revolver and magazine fed action of arms are common, then I'd agree (note though all you engineers planning on building a directed energy weapon with your raspberry pi and 3d printer... That will be banned)
Reply With Quote
  #2059  
Old 06-14-2021, 2:30 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,054
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
The history of most cartridges in common use are from military; that doesn't mean they are used today in "military" use as if they are a special type of ammunition. Just about every single one. Are we seriously saying that the 6.5mm creedmore, or .223, for example, is suitable for civilian use while the 6.5 swede or 5.56mm is not?

Despite that US v Miller itself provides the "common use by infantry" test? What is the purpose of including the term "military" (or "military-style") as a dis-qualifier or a magical totem?
I would say "Context of Purpose". We as a group of long time firearms enthusiasts. Use "military" as either a adjective to describe certain cartridges for clarity of origin. Or as a noun to describe same. For same purpose.

Ex. [1] ... 38 spl started out as a "military cartridge". Adj

Ex. [2] ... 38 spl cartridge began being used by our "military" Noun

Whereas leftist weenie wankers use words, not for clarity, BY ANY MEANS. They use them for obsfucation. They use "military cartridge", "military rifle", "military whatever" because it sounds scary to the ignorant masses. No clarity of description at all. SIMPLY FOR INSTILLING FEAR. And swaying ignorant opinions.

I know you, me, and every other CalGunner has taken offense by Anti 2A Politicos calling AR-15 "WEAPONS OF WAR". Because they don't want the public informed. They want them ignorant and scared, so they will call for the gubermint to save them.
Reply With Quote
  #2060  
Old 06-14-2021, 6:27 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,617
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From The Los Angeles Times this morning... Overturning California’s assault weapon ban was wrong. But it may be on solid legal ground

Quote:
...The judge’s written opinion, although it began with a nutty comparison of a Swiss Army knife to an AR-15 assault rifle, may be on solid ground concerning a basic point: that what we call assault weapons have become so commonplace they now are protected by the 2nd Amendment...

But UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who focuses on the Constitution and 2nd Amendment issues, strongly disagrees with Chemerinsky.

Winkler interprets both the Heller opinion and a 1939 court ruling — United States vs. Miller — as broadly protecting firearms currently in common use. That ruling regulated sawed-off shotguns and machine guns.

“Benitez’s opinion was unnecessarily provocative,” Winkler says. “If nothing else, it was totally tone-deaf comparing Swiss Army knives to rifles.”

But the opinion’s conclusion was “certainly plausible,” Winkler continued. “It’s an opinion that’s likely to win over a number of justices on the Supreme Court...
The author is still hung up on "Swiss Army Knife," but even he is acknowledging that the law may, in fact, be on our side.

You gotta wonder what 'new' law he thinks will obviate it... or so my cynical thinking goes.
Reply With Quote
  #2061  
Old 06-14-2021, 10:53 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 100
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

M16 used by US MILITARY is a select fire weapon and in all fact is a machine gun and falls under the assault weapon description because of this you have safe, semi, burst, full auto. The AR15 is only a semi auto firearm without a select fire mechanism and is not an assault weapon nor does it meat the standards to be in the classifications as the M16 is in. Therefore I own an ARMORLITE STYLE SEMI AUTO RIFE that does not hold up to the test to be in the same class as the M16 even though they appear to look the same they don't function the same.
Reply With Quote
  #2062  
Old 06-14-2021, 10:58 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 100
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A mule that has been painted o look like a ZEBRA IS STILL A MULE.
Reply With Quote
  #2063  
Old 06-14-2021, 12:59 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 273
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
From The Los Angeles Times this morning... Overturning California’s assault weapon ban was wrong. But it may be on solid legal ground



The author is still hung up on "Swiss Army Knife," but even he is acknowledging that the law may, in fact, be on our side.

You gotta wonder what 'new' law he thinks will obviate it... or so my cynical thinking goes.
Too many liberals get too caught up on the Swiss Army knife comparison as a talking point, refusing to understand that Benitez was using it simply as a metaphor for “adaptable to many different lawful uses”. Had Benitez simply substituted those six words instead of Swiss Army Knife, liberals would have found some other phrase to take out of context to cause their heads to explode.
Reply With Quote
  #2064  
Old 06-14-2021, 1:14 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,361
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
They use "military cartridge", "military rifle", "military whatever" because it sounds scary to the ignorant masses. No clarity of description at all. SIMPLY FOR INSTILLING FEAR. And swaying ignorant opinions
Why is it used here
Quote:
more powerful than typical military handgun calibers such as 9mm or 38SP,
And why is it preceded by "typical"? Because that implies typical *only in the military* or *only interesting because it is used by the military*. Why else phrase it that way?

If he meant "typical" as a whole, the word "military" has even less meaning in that context, since it is purely a historical (and entirely irrelevant) footnote.

Once again, what are the motives behind using both "typical" and "military" in the same phrase?

What can we conclude about somebody who chooses that phrasing, along with constructing novel reasons for a pistol grip, especially at a time when the DoJ would be well served to completely fabricate homicidal motives for "needing" a pistol grip right about now?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 06-14-2021 at 1:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2065  
Old 06-14-2021, 1:22 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,361
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkwater34 View Post
assault weapon
Rifle. Please don't let them alter your choice of words. Orwell had it right.

Always Use "assault weapon[sic]" and "large capacity magazine[sic]" with both scare quotes and [sic] where possible to show your disdain for their blatant and dishonest revisionism.

Choice of words have meaning. Do not give an inch. You can bet the DoJ will not.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 06-14-2021 at 3:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2066  
Old 06-14-2021, 1:38 PM
HibikiR HibikiR is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: LA County
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkwater34 View Post
The AR15 is only a semi auto firearm without a select fire mechanism and is not an assault weapon rifle
Choose your words more carefully. You're use of "assault weapon" is what the left wants.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:38 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical