Gold Supporter
- Messages
- 3,143
- Reactions
- 7,984
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sadly there is no guns made that are not covered. What is really sad is that we have to constantly try to say the AR is not something, not covered, of course it is. We are in this race because the people who want to take guns are always looking for the next compromise gun owners will go for. When they get anther they move on to the next. Look how well it works. When This state was making noise about saying those old enough to serve and vote should not be able to buy an AR, even in this group I saw people saying they supported this idea.


They don't care. That common use language means nothing to them anymore. They change their language every day so you'll never know what they want.
isnt the top one one of those "not a firearm" deals tho?In a general sense....there is no difference between the firearms pictured below.
Both are just rifles...both are meant to accurately place a projectile on a target.
Both should be covered by the 2nd Amendment...
Andy
View attachment 642087
J Henry Trade Rifle Circa 1800
View attachment 642088
AR15 Carbine assembled by me in 2018
Andy
Forgive my ignorance, what does "common use" have to do with our constitutional right? Does the 2A define whats "commonly used" as the only arm protected?
Not debating but eager to learn, I feel like Ive heard this before but not certain..
I thought that only had to do with imported rifles?It's ATF nomenclature, look into their "sporter" clause.
https://www.atf.gov/file/57521/download
yeah atleast 423 million guns. doesnt include home built ones like 80%ers and the like![]()
I do not see that anywhere in the ruling, the ruling only upheld that short barreled shottys were NFA items.The U.S. versus Miller of 1939. Look that SCOTUS case up. It defined arms protected by 2A as being suitable for militia/military use and in common use
I do not see that anywhere in the ruling, the ruling only upheld that short barreled shottys were NFA items.
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I still want to know what "common use" has to do with the 2A?
harvardlpr.com
Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2817-18. The common use standard is entirely adequate for resolving a broad category of claims. It is especially suited to resolving challenges to supply restrictions—i.e., gun bans of various types. On the other hand, Heller's common use standard is insufficient for evaluating regulations that just add friction to exercise of the right. It is at this stage pure speculation how the jurisprudence for resolving those types of questions will evolve. For discussion of the possibilities see Nicholas J. Johnson, Administering the Second Amendment: Law, Politics and Taxonomy, 50 Santa Clara L. Rev. (forthcoming 2010) [hereinafter Administering].
Also in Heller, is noted that 2A is not unlimited(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
I thought that only had to do with imported rifles?
In a general sense....there is no difference between the firearms pictured below.
Both are just rifles...both are meant to accurately place a projectile on a target.
Both should be covered by the 2nd Amendment...
Andy
View attachment 642087
J Henry Trade Rifle Circa 1800
View attachment 642088
AR15 Carbine assembled by me in 2018
Andy