Posted on 04/25/2020 4:06:17 PM PDT by rktman
In an Amicus Brief submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Miller versus Becerra, the Giffords Law Center and associated attorneys make the following argument.
Such combat-style features distinguish military rifles and their semi-automatic counterparts from standard sporting rifles, and are not “merely cosmetic”—they “serve specific, combat-functional ends.” H. Rep. No. 103-489, at 18. The Regulated Assault Rifles include features that enhance ammunition capacity, concealability, stability, and control, making it easier for shooters to fire accurately without sacrificing rate of fire. The “net effect of these military combat features is a capability for lethality—more wounds, more serious, in more victims—far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns.” Id. In fact, semi-automatic firing of militarystyle weapons like the Regulated Assault Rifles is in many ways more effective than automatic firing of the same weapons because they allow for more accuracy without substantially sacrificing rate of fire. Department of the Army, supra, at 7–12 (stating that “rapid semiautomatic fire” is “[t]he most accurate technique of placing a large volume of fire on poorly defined targets or target areas such as short exposure, multiple, or moving targets”).
This is a remarkable quote, and similar in intent and import to September 2019 testimony before the U.S. House by a Giffords Senior Policy Advisor. One might get the impression that the Giffords Center opposes semiautomatic rifles but has lost interest in fully automatic weapons. Of course, this would be wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at captainsjournal.com ...
The only problem is that the ability to drive a car isn't guaranteed by the Constitution whereas the right to keep and bear arms...
Those who give aid and comfort to the enemy often run into such problems.
An argument against writing a Bill of Rights was that rights not enumerated would be construed as not rights (9th & 10th amendments notwithstanding). Right to vehicular travel is a perfect example (wasn’t enumerated because Founding Fathers did not conceive of infringement).
And her husband wants to be a senator, from Arizona no less.
I have two questions and answers for the left wing anti constitution folks.
1. Can you name me one commonly used firearm that did not at one time have a military application?
That answer is not not only a commonly used firearm but also every firearm in existence was either based on or was utilized for military applications at some point in time.
2. Can the gun hating constitution hating left name me any type of sporting equipment that was not improved over time?
The answer to this question is again, hell no, it all has.
Rifles are used in sporting events and hunting all over this nation every day and they too have become better with new technology.
Heller v DC states that 2A is an individual right and it covers all firearms commonly used and commonly posessed in our nation.
The AR platform rifle is the biggest seller of any “type”
of firearm in existence and in the history of our nation. From this provable and well proven fact the AR platform rifle is the most commonly utilized rifle currently purchased and used in our nation.
One more thought for the left.
If you think that 2A is about hunting your are as stupid and dumb as I think you are.
“Those who give aid and comfort to the enemy often run into such problems.”
In most of the world those who give comfort to the enemy meet a bullet or two. Then everyone still standing smiles and walks away. Justice is done, incident over. Someone someplace may have to do some paperwork.
We were given the 2A to insure that we would never have to suffer mob rule. That threat is greater today than every before in our history.
Giffords Law Center?
Ah you mean Captain Bligh and his sock puppet wife?
And to think, politicians have always said they would NEVER legislate against ownership of rifles.
Even the 1934 Firearms act specifically left rifles off the “to be taxed out of existence” list.
The lies we have been told over the years...
1962 We ONLY want to register handguns. Rifles will not be affected!
1964, We ONLY want to register ALL firearms, not ban them.
1968 We ONLY want to register all guns, and ban the import of foreign Saturday Night Specials, and 5-shot bolt action army surplus rifles! (they got the ban).
1970, We ONLY want to ban small American handguns. Rifles will not be affected!
1976 We ONLY want to ban ALL handguns! Rifles will not be affected!
1981, Actress Lee Grant on Good Morning America screams...”THE NRA IS A RIFLE ORGANIZATION! THEY SHOULD GIVE UP THEIR HANDGUNS AND THEY CAN KEEP THEIR RIFLES!”
1984, they made a grab for the rifles, and missed, but played their hand.
1988,Josh Sugarmann, of the National Council to Ban Handguns tells how to ban rifles.
“Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over
fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons
—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine
gun— can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on
these weapons.”
– Josh Sugarmann
Gun owners now know that any time we negotiate with those who want to ban guns, we are up against a stacked deck.
So our State Police and County Sheriffs no longer serve a ‘law enforcement’ function - they’re now a ‘combat arms’ branch of the State.
That’s good to know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.