Major Decision By Court: AR-15’s are NOT Protected Under the 2nd Amendment

  • The gun debate is always a hot button topic especially when it comes to hunters, outdoor enthusiasts, and people living off the grid.

    It seems that this topic just got a little bit hotter due to a landmark decision by The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals who have decided that the AR-15 is not protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Consitution.

    Let’s take a look at what they said and how they came to this major decision. 

    Next Page »

    238 Comments

    1. Sarah Kusler-Never said:

      Lol it may seem straightforward enough for you, but it does not specify the types of weapons or sho exactly should have access to the diff levels of weapons. It doesnt matter if you think its clear. Greater people than you have debated over 2AM’s application in the SUPREME COURT – if it was as clear as you think, then SCOTUS wouldnt have had to rule on it. Lmao at you people saying its clear and leaves no room for interpretation. Lmao and youre the ones tellin those two dudes that they need to be educated. Hahah whT the crap?? Look up US v Lopez. Have you read that? That’s the cornerstone 2AM case. Its not black n white. The language in the US consitition DOES have ambiguities, and thats why the SCOTUS has the exclusive ruling over it’s interpretations.

    2. Thomas Daniel Gunter said:

      There are hunting rifles in the right hands that better serve the same purpose. The AR 15 is not any better than hunting rifles that fire the same rounds. It is usually seen in the hands of young men barely old enough to own such a weapon to try and get attention, not knowing it’s not positive attention and does not make them look any more “manly” It is not a military grade weapon and is of no more quality than the same caliber usually .223 or .556 hunting rifle available to civilians. The barrel would become compromised very quickly if fired full auto. No doubt. You could raise some hell with it, but it’s still just a semi auto rifle, civilian version, nothing more…

    3. Jerry Walton said:

      Being black isn’t a real qualifier for being an assault rifle. An AR is no different than any other semi automatic rifle. The members of this court are morons. Clueless morons.

    4. Matthew Fitch said:

      JP Kruchten You may not be old enough to remember, but South Africa had something called, “apartheid.” It was basically a system that overwhelmingly benefited the white people while disenfranchising the black people – very similar to slavery or Jim Crow laws in the United States; predominately the backwards Southern States. Socioeconomic terrorism by whites lead to a disproportionate number of blacks committing crimes – NOT genetics as you claim.

    5. Justin Coakley said:

      I really wouldn’t waste my time with contemporary white supremacists. Most of them are just self-conscious about their lack of sex appeal, explains why they call everyone they don’t like ‘cucks’.

    6. Craig Ha said:

      It’s black and scary looking. That’s all they want to know…

    7. Jared Stambaugh said:

      Baron Samedi I bet you think Veteran’s are pussies for using guns as well. I can remove your throat with my bare hands, but bullets are much more entertaining.

    8. Kenny Perry said:

      Anybody that wants to get rid of your AR 15 , give me a shout ..

    9. Kenny Perry said:

      I’m thinking your a snowflake or something!! Keep your ammunition far away from your weapon….Yeah your Mental !!

    10. Brian Overcash said:

      The right to keep means own. the right to bear means carry when and where evere you want. Arms means anything that can be used as a weapon and that is a list that can wrap around the whole world twice.

    11. Barbara Wenke said:

      Well Kenny if you have guns and kids you might want to keep them safe. Just sayin that grand old flag is really shot up and should be properly retired at the nearest Post, show some respect for old glory. Later loser

    12. Baron Samedi said:

      And Jared, read your damn bible:”Thou shalt not kill.” I see that cross on your throat.

    13. Matt Crandall said:

      BULLSHIT!!!! IF THE GOVERNMENT IS ISSUING IT TO THERE SOLDIERS, THEN WE ALL SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THEM!!!!!$#%&!@*ANY$#%&!@*THAT MAKES YOUR GOVERNMENT STRONGER THEN THE PEOPLE.

    14. Sheamus Yurdle McDurdle said:

      Matthew Fitch, what was taken from you? Im not defending or criticizing any side with this question. I just, am curious. I never heard of anyone losing their guns during the Obama administration.

    15. Jim Nicol said:

      Maybe the court won’t protect them but the owners will.

    16. Christopher Hall said:

      Sarah Kusler-Never that is because the supreme court has never applied strict scrutiny to the second. they won’t because incorporation will force every state to throw out all weapon laws. state and federal. it’s real hard to put that genie back in the box. especially when everyone knows that they have been breaking constitutional law for nearly 200 yrs. the verbatim constitution lasted 7yrs federally and not one day on the state level.

    17. Glenn Ferguson said:

      Matthew Fitch you are truly stupid. First tomcats have been retired for some 10+ yrs. Second with the right licences i can go out and buy anything the military has. Tanks helicopters all Except nukes. So yes with enough money and the right licences i can have what ever they have via second amendment

    18. Glenn Ferguson said:

      And fyi the ar 15 ia no more dangerous then any other hunting rifle out there one trigger pull equals one fire. Just because you morons think it looks like a m16. Makes you pussys scared of it

    19. Bryant Smith said:

      The Supreme Court has spent a lot of time to explain ways that “shall not be infringed” can be ignored, Sarah Kusler-Never.

      It is clear. Blatantly so.

    20. Bryant Smith said:

      Shall; expressing a strong assertion or intention.

      Not; used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word

      Be; Used to express possibility.

      Infringed; act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

      Pretty straight forward.

      The debate is not what it means, but how to ignore it.

    21. David Hemenway said:

      I guess this judge thinks having an AR-15 means you are un-armed.
      What a chowder head.
      I thought all of that had already been worked out.

    22. Pete Rau said:

      The court is SCOTUS not the fourth district. Arnold had a good shot in Terminator with the same vintage and model as mine. Of course, mine does not have a 30 round clip. It has the factory 15. It is a NYS registered rifle.

    23. Esther said:

      That’s not just the best anwres. It’s the bestest answer!

    *

    *

    Top