In a major victory for gun rights advocates, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn has granted a preliminary injunction of Illinois’ ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The decision comes after two other district courts ruled in favor of the law — sending this issue to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court. These long-awaited challenges will test the Democratic calls for removing all AR-15s and similar weapons, including calls from President Joe Biden.
I have previously raised doubts over some of these laws, which are based on questionable factual claims and distinctions between weapons. Indeed, President Biden has made dubious constitutional and historical claims about the Second Amendment and AR-15s.
Illinois and New York have previously supplied gun rights advocates with huge victories by drafting facially unconstitutional laws. Moderate efforts at gun control are often ramped up in the legislative process to become more and more sweeping.
McGlynn recognized that gun bans are popular in states like Illinois but noted that “even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens.”
The court tackles the argument made by many gun control advocates that states can ban “non-essential accessories” like magazines because they are not themselves “arms” under the Second Amendment.
PICA outlaws possession of a “semiautomatic pistol” with a detachable magazine if it is equipped with any of the following: “a threaded barrel,” “a shroud attached to the barrel or that partially or completely encircles the barrel,” “a flash suppressor,” or “arm brace.” PICA further outlaws possession of a magazine for a handgun capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition and of “[a] semiautomatic pistol that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 15 rounds.” Defendants contend that such items are not necessary to the functioning of a firearm and are thus not “arms” and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.
Defendants’ argument is not persuasive. The Seventh Circuit has recognized the Second Amendment as extending to “corollar[ies] to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense.” It is hard to imagine something more closely correlated to the right to use a firearm in self-defense than the ability to effectively load ammunition into the firearm. The Third Circuit recognized the importance of this corollary and held that “a magazine is an arm under the Second Amendment.”
McGlynn also stated that it is “bordering on the frivolous” to claim that neither large capacity magazines nor assault weapons are protected because they were not in common use when the Second Amendment was ratified. He cited the long-standing rule 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.”
The court also rejected the claim that the standard is whether a weapon was in common use for self-defense:
Bruen clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects “possession and use” of weapons “in common use” not just weapons in common use for self-defense as Defendants’ argued. Even if there was a requirement that the “common use” of an “arm” be self-defense, AR-15 style rifles would meet such a test considering that 34.6% of owners utilize these rifles for self-defense outside of their home and 61.9% utilize them for self-defense at home.
The court further noted that large capacity magazines are commonly owned and used by sporting enthusiasts and there are more AR-15s than F150s in this country.
Judge McGlynn also noted that these weapons are commonly used for self-defense and that there are up to 2.5 million instances each year in which civilians used firearms for home defense. He added:
“In no way does this Court minimize the damage caused when a firearm is used for an unlawful purpose; however, this Court must be mindful of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. While PICA was purportedly enacted in response to the Highland Park shooting, it does not appear that the legislature considered an individual’s right under the Second Amendment nor Supreme Court precedent. Moreover, PICA did not just regulate the rights of the people to defend themselves; it restricted that right, and in some cases, completely obliterated that right by criminalizing the purchase and the sale of more than 190 “arms.” Furthermore, on January 1, 2024, the right to mere possession of these items will be further limited and restricted Accordingly, the balance of harms favors the Plaintiffs.
The Court recognizes that the issues with which it is confronted are highly contentious and provoke strong emotions. Again, the Court’s ruling today is not a final resolution of the merits of the cases. Nothing in this order prevents the State from confronting firearm-related violence. There is a wide array of civil and criminal laws that permit the commitment and prosecution of those who use or may use firearms to commit crimes. Law enforcement and prosecutors should take their obligations to enforce these laws seriously. Families and the public at large should report concerning behavior. Judges should exercise their prudent judgment in committing individuals that pose a threat to the public and imposing sentences that punish, not just lightly inconvenience, those guilty of firearm-related crimes.”
Here is the opinion: 2023-04-28-Order-Granting-MPI
We have an impasse that prevents us from protecting ordinary citizens, esp. children, from attacks by serial killers.
Republicans take an absolutist view of the term “arms” in the second amendment while Democrats only want to focus on guns and gun accessories rather than the persons who commit these kinds of crimes. I disagree with both views.
The Second Amendment says: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Obviously, the framers had in mind the late Roman Empire, when the citizens of Rome had completely lost the ability to conduct military operations, thus leaving the city and Empire open to barbarian conquest. They esteemed the early Roman Republic where citizens put down the plow to pick up arms to defeat foreign foes. They wanted citizens who were accustomed to the miliary arts.
It is not necessary for the citizenry to possess every possible weapon to maintain the ability to conduct military operations. Indeed, more important than weapons are organizations like shooting clubs, or war gamers, to encourage a martial spirit and skill in the populace. An absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment would suggest that citizens should have the right to possess cannons, tanks, and bombs, al of which are “Arms”. This is obviously absurd.
On the other hand, Democrats refuse to recognize that the main problem is people who use guns rather than the guns themselves. We need to develop a profile of the serial killers. Many have mental illness. Many are teen-agers. Almost all are young males (even if they pretend to be women). Many have expressed violent threats on social media. Many are obsessed by violent video games. I suspect that a disproportionate number have past crimes of violence, which may have been pled down to misdemeanors because of their youth. Whatever, a demographic profile can be built. Whoever fits into that profile should be denied possession of assault weapons.
If both parties can give way on their absolutist views, it should be possible for Congress to make a general law that either forbids or restricts ownership of assault weapons. Such a law would probably survive Constitutional challenge in two ways. First, Congress can revert to the early view that each branch of government is the exclusive judge of its own powers. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-5/ALDE_00000034/. Second, judicial review can be restricted under Article III, section 2, which states in part:
“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
In drafting our Constitution, our Founder’s wanted to be very specific about some “Individual Rights” they felt might be easily stripped away from their fellow American’s IF, or WHEN, the Government they were creating might become overbearing, even tyranical. So in their genius, they created the Bill of Rights. They felt a specific Bill outlining those Rights, so “The People”, both individually and together, would have the opportunity to push back on, and hold accountable our Government to “The People”. Each of those specific “Rights” are Individual Rights, not collective Rights more than that, each of these individual Rights are INALIENABLE, meaning they can NOT be taken away from us, we are born with them and they are inherent from our Creator, to us, humankind.
Too many people fail to see, to know, to believe that we have these Rights, and our overlords in Government are all to happy to see us fail in understanding this, because when we fail, it leaves a void that they are all too happy to fill with LIES. Once we start believing their LIES, the easier we are to control!
“An absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment would suggest that citizens should have the right to possess cannons, tanks, and bombs, al of which are “Arms”. This is obviously absurd.”
The Right to ‘possess’ is not absurd at all. Impractical for those and other very large weapons? Nearly universally, Yes.
2A Rights are ‘The People’s, in the affirmative and against government infringement or restrictions of them. There’s no mention in the 2nd about what *kind* of technology arms may consist. It does mean at least on parchment, otherwise law-abiding citizens can own and possess cannons, tanks and bombs, as impractical as they might actually be. And yes, the government can and has previously interfered in ways making purchasing those arms more difficult to acquire and use lawfully, including fees only the likes of Soros, Musk and Gates can pay and the reams of paperwork and rectal-like examinations by FBI/ATF/FJB, you name it, required makes it not worth the attempt for most. But the Right itself is not absurd.
If if the executive wants to conduct warrantless searches of public housing projects, or establish racial segregation…
Don’t fret War is coming soon (End of May things escalate).
Young Men & Women will get their hands on a Military Issued M4/M4A1
[same gas operated AR action design] or New XM5 Rifle]
The past few days I have been watching the NFL “DRAFT”, and thinking that subliminally the Military Government and Media have teamed up with the NFL to ‘Frame’ the term “Draft” with the positive notion of: Being Drafted is Good.
These Young Kids (Players) get “Drafted” and it’s like Winning the Lottery* Awesome right [?]
But when the Government starts the “DRAFT” it is a Lottery and Your Number is going to WAR.
The Government Draft goes in Rounds as well, and You also get selected for different Teams and Divisions.
Only they are Military Teams and Divisions. Wonder if They will Televise the War Draft like they do the NFL Draft.
By the Way, The Military Draft does not have a “signing bonus”, your luck to get a Bus Ticket to Boot Camp.
* The first pick of the fourth round (4th rd) will sign a contract worth approximately $4.72 million and receive a signing bonus of approximately $887,172. The second pick of the round will receive a $4.707 million contract with a $867,484 signing bonus.
M4/M4A1
The M4/M4A1 5.56mm Carbine is a lightweight, gas operated, air cooled, magazine fed, selective rate, shoulder fired weapon with a collapsible stock. It is now the standard issue firearm for most units in the U.S. military.
https://www.military.com/equipment/m4-carbine
Army Announces 2 New Rifles for Close-Combat Soldiers
The Army recently awarded a contract to manufacturer SIG Sauer for two new soldier weapons: the XM5 rifle and the XM250 automatic rifle. For soldiers involved in close-quarters combat, the XM5 will eventually replace the M4/M4A1 carbine rifle, while the XM250 will replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3005746/army-announces-2-new-rifles-for-close-combat-soldiers/
Forrest Gump,
That is an interesting idea, but you really think Congress will bring back the draft?
The military has had issues with recruitment and retention. Most young military aged men cannot meet the physical fitness requirements, have criminal records, or drugs issues of the legal and illegal kind.
Families with long military backgrounds, aka conservatives, are not joining up like they used to. They are not interested in signing up under this admin, this all new, all woke military.
They can hand young men the MX5 but if they are too fat, or are dependent on ADD drugs or get separated from their smartphone, they are not going to be an effective fighting unit.
If they fight at all.
Never forget.
The same side that, for two years, accused police of habitually hunting down and gunning down unarmed Black men, the same side that accused the criminal justice system of being systemically racist, the same side that called for decarceration and defund the police…
..is the same side that wants stricter gun control laws to be enforced by these very same police in this very same system.
By the way, Illinois is the same state where the Chicago PD and HUD tried to conduct warrantless searches of the Robert Taylor Homes to combat the threat of school shootings and gang violence. Here is more about that.
https://archive.md/mgil3
Jonathan: Moving on there was some other interesting developments this week in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation. And it’s not good news for Sen. Ted Cruz. Former Fox producer, Abby Grossberg, is turning over to Smith recordings of a conversation between Cruz and Fox host Maria Bartiromo–in which Cruz was pushing a fake “commission” to steal the election from Biden and give it to Trump. Cruz’s proposal was predicated on Pence stopping the Electoral College vote. Then a “commission” would be appointed to resolve any “discrepancies”–naturally in favor of Trump. Cruz’s plan didn’t happen because Pence refused to go along. Wow! Talking about violations of the law. This would make Ted Cruz a central player in the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election–and why Cruz may be in a lot of legal trouble.
And all of this comes after Mike Pence was forced to give 7 hours of testimony before Smith’s grand jury. Both Pence and Trump fought to prevent the former’s subpoena. No doubt because they knew Pence has one of the smoking guns. Trump knows he will be in another heap of trouble if/when Smith drops his hammer. So Trump does what he performs at best. He lashes out at Smith describing the Special Counsel as “a Trump-hating prosecutor…His wife’s a Trump hater. They all hate Trump. They hate him with a passion and they’ll do anything they can to hurt Trump”. Classic Trump.
To make matters worse for the Trumpster, Smith is also investigating Trump’s use of bogus election claims to raise millions of dollars from his gullible MAGA supporters. This fundraising scheme may have violated federal wire fraud laws which prohibit the use of fake information to raise money. Talking about piling on. That’s Smith in spades! Do I hear some applause?
So what?
you have no credibility complaining, not after the whole “Trump Colluded with Russia®™ to Steal the 2016 Election” propaganda campaign.
So, Abby Grossberg was recording conversations of her colleagues? She sounds more like a DNC spy than a legitimate journalist.
VICTORY YOU SAY, OR IMMUTABLE FUNDAMENTAL LAW?
THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT AMERICA AND THE CONSTITUTION ARE UP FOR DEBATE.
DRAW AND QUARTER OR MORE KINDLY AND GENTLY EXILE AND REPATRIATE THOSE TREASONOUS ENEMIES.
CHINA AND AMERICAN TRAITORS ARE SLOW-BOILING THE AMERICAN FROG
___________________________________________________________________
“Federal Judge Enjoins Illinois’ Assault Weapon Ban”
“In a major victory for gun rights advocates, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn has granted a preliminary injunction of Illinois’ ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines.”
– Professor Turley
______________
What ——- country do you readers think you are in? This is the United States of America (now fully invaded and conquered apparently). Illinois is not superior to the Constitution. A federal judge is not superior to the Constitution. Illinois has no power to amend the Constitution. A federal judge has no power to amend the Constitution. A federal judge is sworn to “support” the clear and evident, meaning and intent of the Constitution. The entire nation is obligated to adhere to the Constitution. The Constitution enjoins wholly unconstitutional and so-called “assault weapon bans” before Illinois or any other level of government passes one. This is not internal legislation and governance, this is anti-American communist propaganda and anti-American communist psychological operations. Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America and their global communist allies are direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of freedom and self reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Americans and America. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America not understand? The singular American failure, since 1860, has been and remains the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court. Judges and Justices must be held accountable for the destruction of the maximal freedom of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and America.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
George, Remember that in your false sense of reality the 14th amendment is not recognized so therefore the 2nd amendment does not apply to State laws like IL.
Now you understand.
The “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments” of Karl Marx and “Crazy Abe” Lincoln were corruptly and improperly ratified within the era of illegal war and under the duress of brutal, post-war military occupation and oppression, and subsequent to the initial illicit, illegal, invalid, illegitimate and unconstitutional acts of Lincoln, such as the denial of fully constitutional secession, seizure of power, the imposition of martial law, prosecution of heinous “total” war, not of common defense but of illicit aggression against a sovereign foreign nation, smashing of presses, imprisonment of political opponents, suspension of habeas corpus, etc., and were and remain similarly illicit, illegal, invalid, illegitimate and unconstitutional, all while reprehensible slavery must have been ended by legal means.
_____________________________________________________
“They consider…that it fell to…Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, 1864
Great! A judge who appreciates the simplicity and clarity of the Second Amendment particularly as it relates to self-defense and lawful use, as well as one who understands and appreciates that when any type of firearm weaponry is in common use it is a disfranchisement of privileges of citizenship to suspend it or temper it in any way.
Jonathan: Since Jan. 1 there have been at least 18 mass shootings. Yesterday, a man in Austin, Texas ( the home for those who can buy and carry any weapon they damn well please) shot and killed 5–including as 8 yr. old. The shooter used an AR-15 style rife. And today you are celebrating Judge McGlynn’s injunction against Illinois’ ban on assault weapons? Bizarre! Coming the day after the latest mass shooting one would think your column was paid for by the NRA!
My rights don’t end where your “feelings” begin.
States no doubt have a compelling interest in suppressing and punishing murder.
The Constitution limits the states’ ability to do such things.
https://www.quora.com/With-all-the-gun-violence-why-are-gun-control-laws-always-getting-struck-down-as-unconstitutional/answer/Michael-Ejercito
You fail to mention that the shooter is a Mexican National who shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun in the first place. He, along with the Honduran nationals he shot, were here at the bequest of the Biden administration and represent the best and brightest the countries south of the border are sending for the invasion. Mexicans doing the job that the U.S. Border patrol is stopped from doing. It’s a win-win if you ask me.
Civil rights protect Mexican nationals, such as when this person is brought to court on murder charges.
Denise,
How do you define a mass shooting?
Do you use the FBI definition of 4 or more people injured in a single event?
If so, do you know what the most common weapon used to commit a mass shooting?
Its a pistol. Of the pistols, 9mm are the most common. Far more than any long gun.
Last year there were over 23 mass shootings in Chicago alone.
So you clearly don’t know much about guns or the law… or even the basic data.
-G
“How do you define a mass shooting?”
Svelaz (like he defines free speech) would define a mass shooting as a shooting that occurs during Mass.
So you clearly don’t know much about guns or the law… or even the basic data.
Dennis in no better than the other DNC trolls, mindlessly spitting out the talking points of the day. Unaware how stupid the talking points are.
Dennis like the others have no sources of information, or lack the cognitive capacity to understand fact.
If you were stranded on a lonely gravel road in the middle of the night, and I had my AR15 over my shoulder and my .40 cal Glock on my hip and I stopped to help you, you would be as safe as you are at your kitchen table.
We have a people problem.
We have a thicket of laws burdening the honest, and yet these laws are ignored when handing out sentences to the lawbreakers because those who enforce the law have given up on enforcement and punishment.
A new poopular cable show just aired an episode in which the main actress started to pontificate that blacks are only 13% of the population but are imprisoned “disproportionately” to their population numbers. Of course, the conclusion was that our prison system is racist. No Democrat ever questions that red herring, or states the more accurate FBI statistics (for 2021) that blacks commit almost 40% of all homicides and 60% of all robberies. In other words, the 13% is responsible for crime way “disproportionate” to their population numbers. Sometimes people are in jail because they actually commit a crime. And almost all of the criminals I have read about in the last year have been either out on bail, or had a criminal record as long as your arm. So much for “disproportionate” imprisonment.
In real life, most people making this complaint also want stricter gun control laws which will use this very same racist prison system.
Nope…
They want the current laws that are on the books to be enforced.
BTW, currently the largest number of new gun owners are black women.
You can think about that for a second or two for the reality to set in.
-G
Democrats should first be able to define “assault weapon,” because it has become an ideological mantra rather than an honest descriptive term. But, as in the case of “men can be women” they cannot define something they have fabricated out of thin air. But the key phrase in the judge’s statement is: “Law enforcement and prosecutors should take their obligations to enforce these laws seriously.” Democrats use gun control to fool their voters into thinking they are doing somthing about crime, when all they’re really doing is ignoring crime. Democrats cannot fit the concept of crime into their DEI narrative. When it’s their major voter base committing most of the crime in America, it’s too risky for Democrats to campaign against crime.
5 dead in Texas shooting as armed suspect with AR-15 is on the loose
By Rich Calder
April 29, 2023 8:38am
NYPost
Make America Great: Preserve the right to shoot people.
> 60,000,000+ lives killed since Roe v Wade passed by unelected ideologues wearing black robes.
Talk to us when Americans come to cherish life from conception to natural death, and their gonads left in place.
Make America Great Again: Preserve the right for people to defend themselves from criminals who do not obey the law in the first place.
Upstate Farmer: you mean the family who asked their dumbaxx neighbor to stop shooting off his AR-15 because they were trying to get their baby to sleep? This guy went in and butchered 5 of them, including small children, proclaiming that no one had the right to tell him what to so. Are these the “criminals who do not obey the law” that you’re referring to?
Well, yes.
Nevertheless, people accused of horrific crimes have rights.
The Supreme Court told that to Doug Evans.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-9572_k536.pdf
You may read the trial transcript and conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Curtis Flowers is just as bad as Eric Harris and Dyland Klebold.
His civil rights were violated, and the only remedy was to reverse his conviction and death sentence.
Civil rights must protect him to protect us.
And yet, the Constitution protects the rights of that armed suspect, just as it protects the rights of Curtis Flowers.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-9572_k536.pdf
Left wing politicians (and Judges – but I repeat myself) want to ban assault weapons because they do not want blacks to own them. They are racists.
Where is WOKE Now? How is this not Racist?
Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani: Theranos No. 2 and Elizabeth Holmes’ ex-boyfriend who just reported to prison to begin serving a 13-year sentence, While She stays out of Prison and mitigates her Sentence. The Bench is BIAS.
When it come to Dirt, WOKE is Broke.
[Having the feeling – I bet She runs. What are the Vegas Odds?]
I think the subtext in this decision is “go after the criminals and uphold the laws that have to do with criminal behavior.” More and more and more statistics and crime reporting shows that a small percentage of people cause the majority of crime. At one time the US had about 2 million people in prison and much of the left was about in a swoon about that. However we also had the lowest crime rates at that time in decades. I would suggest that there is a not so hidden relationship between those 2 events.
Miami, with a Republican Mayor is enforcing the law and crime rates are plummeting. Crime rates in New York were awful until Giuliani and then Bloomberg were Mayor and then crime plummeted and NY was a wonderful city to visit and I spent time there on several occasions walking down the streets, at nite, and safe. And then there was DeBlasio and progressive DA’s and it all went sour. Why do these Governors and Mayors in Illinois, California, and New York think that so many of their people are leaving. Uphold the law, put criminals away. Criminals are always a cancer on any polity.
Women are Arming up, African Americans are Arming up and so are other Minorities because they bear the greatest burden of crime run amuck. These people are not stupid but their politicians are.
It was nice to see this Judge actually mention the 2.5 million cases/yearly where people used firearms to save and protect themselves.
You know that unless the authorities in these progressive states get their crime under control, more people will leave and those that stay may start to organize and take matters into their own hands. What can be a focused approach with the law will become a blunt instrument of terror in reaction to lawlessness. It’s happened before.
While I am against a ban on AR-15s, I hate the logic that they can’t be banned simply because they are so common.
This line of thinking stems from the circuitous statement in Heller, claiming that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
In other words, if a bunch of Americans started buying rocket launchers to hunt deer, then all of the sudden rocket launchers would have to be protected as a bearable arm. This wont happen because they are banned currently.
AR-15s are common largely because gun owners buy them thinking they will get banned soon. That’s the sad irony of all this. Mass shooting leads to talk of ban leads to more purchases solidifying their numbers thereby justifying their protection under this silly logic
Anonymous
What’s wrong with Rocket Launchers, besides the fact they are illegal? As far as AR-15’s go, they are light weight, highly accurate out to about 400-600 yds, relatively easy to breakdown and clean and very little kick and you can carry a lot of ammunition..The M1 Garand fires a 30-06, weighs 10 lbs and gets very heavy over time and the ammunition is heavy and greater kick. Same with the AR-10 which fires the Win 308 (NATO 7.62×51) which can be light but can bruise the hell out of your shoulder and again the ammunition is heavy. Even hunting the bolt action rifle is slower. Not always easy to bring down a charging person or larger animal with 1 shot of the AR-15 5.56X41. 2-3 rounds maybe necessary. Shotguns are perfect for in home defence but they really make a mess, as would a rocket launcher.
GEB,
I would question the highly accurate part.
Ball, green tip ammo is just making it to the 500 line.
When I was shooting NRA High Power, the guys running ARs, used hand loads with high BC bullets, usually 80grns atop compressed charges to get out to the 600 line and be competitive. Even then they passed through the sound barrier the second time and were usually keyholing the target. It short, the bullet was tumbling.
Running a NM M1A, I had no problems at the 600 line. That 168grn .30 cal bullet was still going supersonic.
And then there is the Army’s new Enhanced Performance Round to make up for all the deficiencies of the green tip ammo.
They also selected SIG’s .277 Fury which is 7.62×51 brass necked down to a .277/6.8 bullet for their next service round. Kinda breaks the whole carry more ammunition argument. It is lighter than 7.62×51 and supposedly can defeat body armor, but I have read that might not be accurate. See what I did there? 😉
Upstate Farmer
All true but I was making a general statement usually pertaining to military arms. I know about the new 6.8 bullet for the military and it was developed because the 5.56 was not penetrating armor manufactured by many of our adversaries. Also I misstated that the 5.56 was a 5.56×41 when in fact it is a 5.56×45. I did not think the audience would be that interested in all of the other calibers in this area.
I note that some people are not happy with the heavier weight of ammo with the new round. As many of you know the weight gets heavier as the day wears on. You can fling around a 10 lb M1 Garand in drill team in ROTC for 1 hour each day and it does not seem heavy but it really gets heavy carrying it all the time 24 hrs a day. We used M1 Garands for our drill team (firing pins removed) and they seemed fine but it was only for short periods and then back into the armory. The M1 carbine was light but was not noted for stopping power. Many in WW2 preferred the 1911 colt semiautomatic because it tended to stop you faster than a carbine.
The Texas Ranger that took out Bonny and Clyde ditched the Thompson Submachine gun when he found that the .45 acp rounds did not penetrate cars very well. His firearm of choice was the BAR firing 10 and 20 round magazines of 30-06 which penetrated through and through cars of the era. Clyde also reportedly used a BAR.
GEB
Bonnie and Clyde used sawed down barrels on their BARs.
When you consider the range that they were shooting… the .30-06 round had plenty of energy.
As to carrying an M1 into combat… plenty of men did that.
And if you want to talk about heavy… check out an M14 in an EBR Mod 0 configuration.
I’d take that over an AR any day.
@Upstate Farmer…
Camp Perry is 600 and plenty of ARs there.
Definitely not as much energy down range at 600 when compared w the M1A.
Ian Michael Gumby,
Yes, I know.
But as I stated, the guys running ARs in 5.56 are using handloads, using VLD, high BC bullets atop compressed charges. So much so they cannot load in a magazine as they are too long. They have to be loaded through the ejection port.
I was shooting brown box, match 168s with no worries.
Q: What would ANTIFA do if their AR-15s were taken from them?
A: AG Merrick Garland would direct FBI to lend them their
earsAR-15sPics/Vids: Masked Antifa with AR-15s stand guard at ‘kid-friendly’ drag show in TX
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/08/pics-vids-masked-antifa-with-ar-15s-stand-guard-at-kid-friendly-drag-show-in-tx/
Unless the police have probable cause that he is plotting, or abiout to commit, a crime, they are not allowed to disarm him, let alone arrest him.
The Antifa crowd and the white sheeter crowd and the Islamist crowd have civil rights too.
@GEB,
If you are ‘bruised’ from firing a 7.62 NATO / .308… you shouldn’t be firing a gun. ;-P
Now had you said a .300WM w no muzzle break… I’d agree it will bruise your shoulder.
Now the 5.56 NATO is a small round. Not as much stopping power or barrier penetration. That’s why the military is looking at a larger round.
In some states…. the .223 is too small for deer.
The 7.62 NATO is too large a round for a select fire rifle. Requires a lot of training to handle. (Hence the M14 being used in semi-auto only.
Now the thing about bolt action rifles… google the Brit’s Mad minute.
-G
@Anon
Trying not to presume, but have you any experience with AR-15s? A 45 pistol or shotgun is a MUCH more potent gun. The AR is a pea shooter by comparison. It’s ammo won’t even rip apart a tin can (I know, because I’ve shot tin cans with them). I agree the logic is fuzzy in this decision, but the gaslighting around this weapon is hysterical, and anyone with even a smidge of knowledge knows it.
@James
Uhm… the .223 bullet in the 5.56 NATO round is traveling at a high velocity. You were also probably firing FMJs.
So it will pass clean thru. Most rifle rounds will.
You can’t compare the .45ACP or a shotgun round. Apples to Oranges.
-G
Nice straw man. You going to put lipstick on it and give it a big kiss?
Where can I buy a rocket launcher?
Bosco,
With the unaccountably of all the weapons going to the Ukraine, I would not be surprised if one showed up in Chicago.
@Upstate Farmer…
LoL… you thinking Ukrainian Village?
(Yes I’m in Chicago)
And no. None will make it back to the states.
The second amendment protects the right to bear arms, all arms. There is no limiting factor in the Constitution. You could bear a revolution era cannon, or yes, a rocket launcher. However, that is a bit too radical sounding to the justices. So, they invented some limiting language. It shouldn’t be a popularity contest, but if it is, the AR platform would win.
If you want to get back to basic purposes, it is the militia. If there were a societal breakdown, invasion or zombie apocalypse, and if whatever was left of the government (or the People) attempted to call up a militia of citizen soldiers, we would want those citizen soldiers to come to the muster bringing their personal arms with them, and we would want those personal arms to be weapons useful to a citizen soldier facing up against the infantry of a current day army. Self defense is not the purpose of the second amendment, war is. We want our citizens, who may become citizen soldiers, armed with weapons of war. That is the true purpose of the second amendment. If it sound radical, it was. If you think times have change and we should change it, then assemble the political consensus to pass a constitutional amendment.
As for that militia purpose, the AR platform is a pretty good choice. Although the platform is old and on the way out, and the civilian version is underpowered in that it does not have the option of fully automatic fire for suppressing fire purposes, it is VERY common with interchangeable parts and uses common ammunition which would ease logistics for our citizen soldier army. I wish I could own an AR, but I live in California and the AR unfortunately has a pistol grip (which merely makes the weapon more comfortable to shoot and easier to control). Pistol grips are a prohibited feature that makes a rifle an “assault rifle” here in California. So, I own a mini-14 ranch rifle. It is a miniature semiautomatic version of the military’s M-14. It shoots the same ammunition as an AR-15, it is semiautomatic like the AR-15. It can accept high capacity magazines like the AR-15 (although California bans any magazine with more than a measly 10 rounds). The mini-14 is a true weapon of war, but since it doesn’t have a pistol grip and LOOKS like something your grandpa carried, it is perfectly legal in California. Go figure.
By the way, California’s assault weapons ban and its high capacity magazines ban have both been held unconstitutional by a federal judge years ago. The cases have been stuck in appeals since, and since Bruen are now back in the trial court, back to square one. As the years have ticked by, the unconstitutional laws have remained in force depriving citizens of their rights, and we have had a few potential zombie apocalypses since then: COVID, Floyd riots, 2020 election “insurrection.” When the SHTF we have the right to be prepared, but some states (and courts) are working hard to deprive us that right.
Rant off.
Tommylotto,
Great rant.
“Self defense is not the purpose of the second amendment, war is. We want our citizens, who may become citizen soldiers, armed with weapons of war. That is the true purpose of the second amendment.”
Self-defense is an inalienable Right. The 2nd reaffirms that Right *in addition to* having a population prepared for war.
In other words, if a bunch of Americans started buying rocket launchers to hunt deer, then all of the sudden rocket launchers would have to be protected as a bearable arm. Price of the Rocket launcher is prohibitive. As is the ammunition.
Unless the govt subsidizes rocket launchers like the subsidize other merchandise the people don’t want, like Electric cars.
Lefties will keep trying, because they only have to win once.
Officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, feel no compulsion to honor their oaths.
There is a fellow in a Georgia jail who has been held without trial for 10 years (!!!!) in spite of the 6th Amendment.
If officials will take 10 years of a man’s life illegally, they won’t hesitate on taking our guns.
@monument
That is exactly right. 👍🏼
My Rights NEVER came from government!
No one is taking our guns. Not even Biden and the National Socialist Democrat WOKE Party.
100 million plus gun owners with 700 million guns.
Why do you suppose there is a continuing surge in gun sales?
Because they know Biden and his goons are today’s NAZIS!
So no debates for PEDO Joe. The most corrupt president in US history. You sold the soul of this Country to China and Ukraine.
“Defendants contend that such items are not necessary to the functioning of a firearm . . .”
Items such as dens and offices are not necessary to the functioning of a household. Therefore, 4A does not apply to those spaces, and government agents can enter and search them at will.
That “reasoning” is tyranny by a thousand cuts.
Sam,
Their “reasoning” is in a word, absurd.
The 2A, is to protect the country and citizens, from the government. Punishing and disarming honest citizens, has never worked out well, for the citizens. The government is doing a lousy job, punishing criminals. They couldn’t even punish baldwin, for wrongful death, or involuntary manslaughter.
Correct. The men who wrote the Second Amendment did not just come back from a four year hunting trip.
I find it troubling that two of the three district judges who ruled on this law were willing to override the Second Amendment. If liberals were in a majority on the Supreme Court, the Constitution would be in tatters, and it wouldn’t just be the Second Amendment.
PudnHead,
Well said.
Or re-written to the point of absurdity
pudding head…
Not sure where you get 2 of the 3 district judges.
There are two sets of lawsuits in Federal court.
One judge a libtard up north heard one case and rejected the motion for a TRO.
The other federal judge is the one who is hearing the combined cases. He is the one who issuesd the TRO.
The third judge is a state judge who ruled that the IL law was illegal because if violated the state’s constitution. Which is now being appealed by El Fatzo in the State of IL Supreme court. (expedited)
With the TRO in place… it means that even if the IL Supreme Court decides that the procedural issues don’t matter, the TRO will still stand.
The TRO is a good indication that the plaintiffs will win.
-G
Well that didn’t take long. It’s simple, really, they have to amend the Constitution. And that dog won’t hunt
I wonder ‘what & how many’ RIDERS to a Bill to Amend the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment would have.
Plenty I suspect; E.R.A., Abortion Right, Federal Authority to (To do what ever it wants) …
It’s amusing to think of the possibilities of what They would come up with.
Re:
In legislative procedure, a rider is an additional provision added to a bill or other measure under the consideration by a legislature, which may or may not have much, if any, connection with the subject matter of the bill. Some scholars identify riders as a specific form of logrolling, or as implicit logrolling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)