The AR15 is, for all intents and purposes, an M16

They are almost the same design - minor details separate them.
They (usually) fire the same ammunition.
They use the same magazines.
They are available in the same barrel, stock and receiver combinations
They are able to use/mount the same sights and accessories
They are equally suited for any and all of the traditionally legal purposes for a firearm.
They are weapons of war.
They are assault rifles.
The are, for all practical intents and purposes, the same firearm.

Thus, when the USSC rules the bans on AR15s unconstitutional, the ruling applies equally to M16s.
Right?

 

Select fire.

 

So?

They are almost the same design - minor details separate them.
They (usually) fire the same ammunition.
They use the same magazines.
They are available in the same barrel, stock and receiver combinations
They are able to use/mount the same sights and accessories
They are equally suited for any and all of the traditionally legal purposes for a firearm.
They are weapons of war.
They are assault rifles.
The are, for all practical intents and purposes, the same firearm.

 

If you see no difference with select fire then lets repeal FOPA.

 

No need.
The USSC will over turn the ban on AR15s because they are "bearable arms" - in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
This will apply to M16s as well because, for all practical intents and purposes, the same firearm.
This will effectively end the pertinent provision of the FOPA and allow new M16/M4s to enter the market.

 

I don't follow the logic, but sounds like a good outcome so all in favor.

 

WRONG

An AR-15 is semi-auto only. You get ONE BULLET fired every time you pull the trigger. It only fires as fast as you your finger can pull the trigger. The "SELECTOR SWITCH" has TWO positions... SAFE AND SEMI. It is NOT a "weapon of war". No military in the world uses it. Not one.
An M-16 can fire FULL AUTO. Pulling and holding the trigger fires 950 ROUNDS PER MINUTE. The "SELECTOR SWITCH" has THREE positions... SAFE... SEMI...and AUTO. Many military forces across the world use the M16.

An M16 and an AR-15 are as different as night and day. Apples and Space Shuttles.

And, by the way. You can buy an AR-15 in the United States by passing a background check and paying for it. Some states require registration and permits... some don't. Costs can run as low as $500. An M16 average cost is $1900. In addition, in the United States, you must get a "Class III" license which costshundreds of dollars and requires a much more extensive background check.

 

The "logic" is using the anti-gun loons' argument against them.

 

No, you'll need several additional incremental steps.
First they'll go after the hughes amendment. Then they'll go after the gca.

 

if they're the same rifle, then they are all in common use; if a ban on the AR15 violates the constitution, then a ban on he M16 does as well.

 

it's actually a tax stamp. a license would have been unconstitutional so the FDR minions used a TAX to get around that

 

I think part of the 1934 NFA is going to get eliminated.

 

I wanna say there is at least one out directly challenging the NFA but its pretty early days for that case yet.
The others though are things like is an FRT a machinegun, or is a bump stock a machinegun, or is an auto card a machinegun. The answer to all of those isn't strike the NFA in the incremental way appeals courts work. Instead its: Nah, those ain't machineguns. Next case.

If they decide pistol braces are stocks, but the NFA's sbr restriction is unconstitutional that could work

 

They're not the same rifle though. Instead they're rather similar.

A ban on any bearable arm violates the constitution, but saying if semis then autos isn't really how you get there.
Instead you get there by saying: Can you pick it up? Is it a weapon? Cool then.

 

No no No No NO!!!!!
THEY ARE THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!
JUST LOOK AT THEM!!

 

While it may not be laid out thusly in code, the precedent (one I happen to agree with from a bureaucratic standpoint) is that indiscriminate fire weapons are not suitable for self defense. From a legal standpoint, they are not 'in common use' either. While I don't think legalizing full auto would lead to a substantial rise in their use in crime (its not hard to get one illegally), setting the line at 'discriminant fire only' is a good objective line for effectiveness of law vs public safety. You certainly won't find me putting any energy into resisting their decriminalization, and it would be FAR better precedentially if we were to amend the constitution to allow for the restriction ONLY of indiscriminate fire weapons, instead of just doing it via bureaucratic fiat like we do now.

 

If the AR15 is an assault rifle, as we are told, then assault rifles are, unquestionably, in common use.

 

in reality, AR 15s are missing the one key feature that makes a rifle suitable for military assault

 

I have an AR(s) because 5.56 is such a common round it should always be available. But I much prefer my 308 launchers... longer range and much more OOMPH! (technical term)

 

No one who wants to ban them is going to care about that logic (or any other logic, ftm). The 'common use' ruling is just another 'NRA tactic to murder more children.' Didn't you know that?

Gun owners are culpable in this deliberate confusion for agreeing (by common terminology) of using the 'assault rifle' term, that never had any real meaning. Might as well call it 'binky' or 'doodad' for all the objectivity it confers.

 

I have tried my best to educate people about why select fire rifles that can be used to substitute for crew served machine guns, are called "assault rifles" gun banners use that term because they want stupid people to think the weapons are designed for CRIMINAL ASSAULT

 

Rifles that fire one shot for one trigger pull are not military weapons no matter how scary they look or how much they scare snowflakes.

 

well the MI Garands and MI Carbines I own were, but currently you are right though the Belgian FAL I own was military issue with some armies who didn't see much use in a full auto 308

 

When the Supreme Court bans AR-15's? Is that before or after the Court moves to Mars?

 

This recent article brings up some interesting points about AR15s:

https://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-issues-ruling-190106327.html