| To: Black Blade who wrote (5283) | 4/13/2023 1:20:18 AM | | From: nicewatch | | | | Own variations of both and definitely agree with your assessment. I remember dirt cheap SKS, although not under $100, am sure I saw them just wasn't paying as much attention to prices then, shame on me... certainly recall $200-300 prices for a long while and have a few of those.
One cool thing on the AR platform that I never really got into (and I guess some of the newer AK frames can as well) but there is now an entire cottage industry in modifying ARs to turn it into almost any type of firearm you want in multiple calibers, as I'm sure you know.
Initially in the 2000s I sort of laughed with my dad and some dealer buddies to watch out, everyone will SWAT-ize their AR15s. And that happened to a portion of the market. But also saw how some friends customized them into cheaper shooting calibers for marksman practice. And most interesting was visiting states where the AR15 is allowed for various types of hunting and people had customized for the caliber and style of firearm they wanted to hunt with. It clearly demonstrated the versatility of the platform and shows why it's been such a popular seller this century. |
| | Guns - America's Greatest Legacy | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Black Blade | 4/26/2023 10:30:41 AM | | | | | | Judge Holds Standard Capacity Magazines are “Not in Common Use for Self Defense”
Ammoland Inc. Posted on April 25, 2023 by Dean Weingarten
A great magazine for everything from concealed carry to home defense, is the 19x 19-round magazine.
In the case of Hanson v. District of Columbia, in the District Court of the District of Columbia, on April 20, 2023, federal Judge Rudolf Contreras issued an opinion holding standard capacity magazines which hold more than ten rounds of ammunition are not protected under the rights which the Second Amendment was written to protect. Judge Contreras acknowledges magazines that hold more than ten rounds are in common use in the United States of America. Judge Contreras acknowledges magazines that hold more than ten rounds are arms as defined by the words of the Second Amendment.
Judge Rudolf Contreras goes to great lengths to determine magazines that hold more than ten rounds are not included under the rights of the Second Amendment. The linguistic juggling to accomplish this difficult task is impressive, not to mention the stretching and twisting of logic. From the opinion:
“More importantly, Heller II recognized that whether LCMs are “in common use” is merely the beginning of the analysis. The full inquiry is “whether the prohibited weapons are ‘typically possessed . . . for lawful purposes.’” Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1260 (emphasis added) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 625). On that critical question, Heller II expressed uncertainty: “based upon the record as it stands, we cannot be certain whether these weapons are commonly used or are useful specifically for self-defense[.]” Id. at 1261 (emphasis added). That is the question this Court must now resolve.”
The simple and straightforward understanding of whether magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds are typically in common use for lawful purposes is clear. There are tens or hundreds of millions of such magazines in the United States. If standard capacity magazines were typically possessed for unlawful purposes, the number of crimes committed using them would be astronomical. But crime with them is not astronomical. The mere fact of common possession equates to common use. Judge Contreras is working very hard to limit the term “common use” to only those uses specifically documented on the record for self-defense. From the opinion:
“The District disagrees; it argues that LCMs are not in common use for self-defense for two reasons. First, it claims that LCMs’ military characteristics make them a poor fit for self-defense and take them outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Second, the District claims that law-abiding individuals do not use LCMs for self-defense because incidents where a civilian actually expends more than ten bullets in self-defense are “vanishingly rare.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 18. The Court agrees with the District on both arguments.”
This is exactly the means-end type of argument that Bruen prohibits. The government is not allowed to decide whether a typical arm is useful for self-defense or not. If the arm is in common use for lawful purposes (not just self-defense), it is protected.
The other bizarre claim is arms that are useful for military purposes, such as those used by a militia, are not protected under the Second Amendment. All scholars agree the Second Amendment protects arms that are able to be used by a militia. The vast preponderance of scholarship is: one purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve an armed population that could bring their arms to service in a militia when the need arises. Arguments that claim arms useful to a militia are explicitly excluded from protection by the Second Amendment are counterfactual to the text of the Amendment itself.
Judge Contreras may be working to clarify Bruen further by prompting the Supreme Court to note magazines holding more than ten rounds are obviously useful in militias for the common defense. It seems unlikely. Judge Contreras is Heller II as precedent in the DC circuit without considering it to be overridden by the Bruen decision.
Judge Contreras fails to mention the opinion of Judge Benitez in the Ninth Circuit. Judge Benetiz considers AR15 rifles to be excellent militia arms. Militias, under the Second Amendment, are to be drawn from an armed population. Progressive judges and scholars have, for decades, declared the Second Amendment only protects use of arms in a militia. Now they declare military uses of arms are not protected by the Second Amendment. Progressive (leftist) ideology is never hindered by logic or facts. Only the political goals of the moment are considered important. Power over others is the singular consistent goal of progressive ideology. |
| | Guns - America's Greatest Legacy | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Black Blade who wrote (5287) | 4/26/2023 10:33:03 AM | | From: Black Blade | | | | Standard Capacity Magazines .............................................................
Always keep a few pouches with loaded magazines at the ready. Besides, fewer reloads makes it easier for range use.
 |
| | Guns - America's Greatest Legacy | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Black Blade | 5/20/2023 4:44:02 AM | | | | | | Biden Wants to Ignore Science to Push Traditional Ammunition Ban
Ammoland Inc. Posted on May 18, 2023 by Jim Grant
By Larry Keane
IMG Jim Grant
The Biden administration, which pledged to “follow the science,” has had a change of heart. Science no longer matters when it comes to their plans to ban traditional lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands.
The U.S. House of Representatives’ Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries held a hearing to discuss Rep. Rob Wittman’s (R-Va.) H.R. 615, Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act. The NSSF-supported legislation would require the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide site-specific peer-reviewed scientific data that demonstrates traditional lead ammunition or fishing tackle is causing detrimental wildlife population impacts before prohibiting their use by hunters and anglers. This matters because the fundamental principle undergirding the science of wildlife management is that you manage populations.
The legislation is in response to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) pulling its own bait-and-switch that put hunters and anglers in a bind last year. USFWS published its rule after a “sue-and-settle” scheme where the antihunting group Center For Biological Diversity sued USFWS to end the use of traditional ammunition on federal lands and USFWS immediately entered into a settlement agreement. USFWS opened or expanded hunting and fishing opportunities at 18 National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) but prohibited the use of traditional lead ammunition and fishing tackle in a phased-in approach. The USFWS, according to their press release announcing the plan, indicated that this measure is based on the best scientific data available; however, no data indicates that traditional ammunition is causing population declines of any wildlife species at any of the refuges.
The Department of the Interior’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks testified before the committee and essentially said, “We don’t need scientific studies. Trust us.”
That’s going to be a problem.
‘Trust me.’ No Thanks
“I think we ought to make sure that decisions are made based on sound science,” explained Rep. Wittman of his bill. “Where there is a relationship between the use of lead, whether it’s ammunition or for fishing sinkers or for that matter lures… to just carte-blanche say that we’re going to allow agencies to ban lead across the spectrum just doesn’t make good sense. “This bill allows us to make sure that there are the necessary science-based guardrails on how these decisions are made,” Rep. Wittman added.
Lawmakers had reasons to doubt the Biden administration on the “trust us” approach to banning traditional lead ammunition. First and foremost is the administration’s myopic focus on gun control. Rep. Jerry Carl (R-Ala.) questioned the motives behind the administration’s insistence on banning traditional lead ammunition. Alternative ammunition is more expensive and less available. The increased costs would limit availability to gun owners that are hunters and non-hunters who might shoot recreationally on federal lands.
“Trust me. I’m from the government. You can trust me. That is such BS,” Rep. Carl said. “I’m smart enough to know if you’re going to control guns – you cannot control guns. You cannot mandate guns, but what you can mandate is the ammo. And that’s what this lead bill is after. I’m sorry. That’s my personal feeling… if you can control the lead that goes in those bullets, you get it overpriced where the average person can’t afford it, that will be the ultimate case right there.” Deputy Assistant Secretary Stricker bristled at the requirement of Rep. Wittman’s bill that scientific data and cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies should drive the decision at each site where the federal government wants to ban traditional ammunition and fishing tackle. Instead, he believes that USFWS should be applied to broadly existing studies across the entirety of the United States. In his estimation, what is happening in Alaska with wildlife is the same as what is happening in Southern California, or Florida for that matter.
“But at the end of the day there’s a national interest in these conservation lands even if they are located within a state or straddle a couple of states that we need to be cognizant of and that the Fish & Wildlife Service has a responsibility to steward those lands,” Deputy Assistant Secretary Stricker said. “Partnering with the states is one thing. Having to ask them for permission is quite another.” Show Me the Science
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) pressed Deputy Assistant Secretary Strickler on his abdication of science to push the Biden administration’s attack on hunters and anglers.
“It seems you’re saying data and science to be a bad thing…” Rep. LaMalfa said in his questions. “Why shouldn’t the government, in this case, have to gain proof like are the lead levels actually affecting the wildlife we’re talking about in these units? Why shouldn’t government have to show through data that there’s an effect before it jumps in with a policy action?” Deputy Assistant Secretary Strickler attempted to justify the “no studies needed” approach by explaining that loons feeding behavior in Maine is the same as in Michigan. That ignores, however, that loons are not native to Virginia, Florida or Arizona. Banning traditional ammunition to protect loons in states where they don’t exist isn’t sound science.
“By that measure, we would ban things that have not reached a level of action across the board if they’ve done it somewhere else,” Rep. LaMalfa explained. “If you had a fuel spill somewhere that greatly affected a body of water, if there’s a potential of a fuel spill near a different body of water than there, then it’s like we should ban all fuel. That’s the same kind of logic.” Deputy Assistant Secretary Strickler disagreed, of course.
“Should we ban all lead shot? Ban all lead tackle?” Rep. LaMalfa asked. “That’s certainly not the policy of the Department of the Interior to ban all lead shot and tackle,” Deputy Assistant Secretary Strickler responded. “It’s effectively doing so,” Rep. LaMalfa said to end the exchange. Conservation Impacts
Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) wanted to know the potential impacts such a ban might have on wildlife conservation. Firearm and ammunition manufacturers have paid over $16 billion, or $25 billion when adjusted for inflation, in Pittman-Robertson excise taxes to the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund since 1937. That’s benefited all Americans with abundant wildlife and habitat restoration along with access to public lands for hunters, anglers and other recreationists.
Rep. Westerman wanted to know what happens when the cost of ammunition goes up. Would hunters absorb those costs or quit hunting, and would Pittman-Robertson conservation funds suffer?
Todd Adkins, Sportsmen’s Alliance’s Vice President of Government Affairs, said he witnessed duck hunters abandon the field over the cost of increased alternative ammunition required for waterfowl hunting. It’s a pattern, he said, that would repeat itself.
“I believe because of the effects that any increase in cost will have on hunters and anglers – the financial backbone – we have to spend some time with that question and not just suggest that everything will remain static and everything’s going to be fine and the world won’t change,” Adkins said. “We know it will change if you increase costs.” Adkins pointed out that Rep. Wittman’s legislation requiring site-specific scientific data in cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies is the key to solving the impasse. That’s what NSSF has been saying all along. Let the science drive the decisions instead of pressures by anti-hunting groups to force through feel-good measures that will harm wildlife conservation in the long run.
“I called it in my testimony elegant simplicity,” Adkins said of the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act. “This was carefully crafted to address the principal problem of the approach taken by many of the agencies right now. Very straightforward, very simple to ask that the science we’re going to utilize to kick hunters and anglers off the landscape is actually directly tied to the unit under consideration.” |
| | Guns - America's Greatest Legacy | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
