Government Admits AR-15s Are Not ‘Weapons of War’

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

State Department and Department of Justice offer definitions of “military equipment,” and it’s NOT an AR-15… READ MORE

ar15

SOURCE: Breitbart
AWR Hawkins

In its settlement with Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed the government admitted that semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber are not weapons of war.

On July 10, 2018, Breitbart News reported that the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) brought a suit against the State Department on Wilson’s behalf. The suit was filed in 2015 and was the result of State Department action to force Wilson to quit sharing 3-D gun files online.

Wilson and SAF fought the suit on First Amendment grounds and secured a settlement with the State Department and the Department of Justice, the latter of which finalizes the settlement.

The amended regulations proposed in the settlement show the government will no longer look at semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber as “military equipment” or weapons of war.

In offering a definition of “military equipment” the settlement says:

“The phrase ‘Military Equipment’ means (1) Drums and other magazines for firearms to 50 caliber (12.7mm) inclusive with a capacity greater than 50 rounds, regardless of the jurisdiction of the firearm, and specially designed parts and components therefor; (2) Parts and components specifically designed for conversion of a semi-automatic firearm to a fully automatic firearm; (3) Accessories or attachments specifically designed to automatically stabilize aim (other than gun rests) or for automatic targeting, and specifically designed parts and components therefor.”

Attorneys in the case expounded on the amended regulations by pointing out that the settlement “expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50 caliber widely available in retail outlets in the United States and abroad [a scope that includes AR-15 and other assault-style rifles], are not inherently military.”

Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb spoke to Breitbart News about the settlement, saying:

“Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby. For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called “weapons of war,” and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort.”

The federal government now saying semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber are not inherently military means that they are admitting that rifles like the AR-15 are civilian in nature. This makes perfect sense, as they existed years before the military adopted the fully automatic version.

Gottlieb added, “Gun rights organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation will now be able to use this government admission in debate and courtrooms from New York to California.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

4 thoughts on “Government Admits AR-15s Are Not ‘Weapons of War’”

  1. Whether or not a particular weapon is considered a “weapon of war” is totally irrelevant to the meaning of, and the right recognized by the second amendment. There is no phrase in the second amendment that says “as long as they aren’t weapons of war”.

    It does not read “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, as long as they aren’t weapons of war.”

    It does read “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”.

    So by that phrase “shall not be infringed” it says you don’t have to ask permission to buy arms, you don’t have to ask permission to carry your arms in any particular manner nor in any particular place.

    If you have to ask permission it’s not a right.

  2. I have been lost by the 2nd amendment defenders lack of understanding of it. Its quite frightening that the left has pushed defenders so far off base.
    When the bill of rights was written and approved it had NOTHING to do with “self defense”. We (the USA) had just beaten back number one super of the time to gain our freedoms from a tyrannical British government. So The context of the 2nd was that the “militia” ( the people) need the arms to defend themselves FROM the tyrannical Government! The point was to never let that happen again hence “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

    So many have let it go to the point that the argument seems to be coming to “for self defense”.
    the military style weapons ARE THE POINT in case we need them to defend ourselves FROM the government

  3. I am solidly opposed to laws, restrictions, and regulations opposed to personal possession of a firearm. With that said, I am concerned about the availability of information published on the internet that assists individuals constructing home made firearms, possibly made from materials that cannot be detect by screening devices, for illegal purposes. Publications of this sort could ultimately resort in stronger and more successful arguments to suppress gun ownership rights if the finish products are misused.

  4. Articles such as this one, whether purposely conspiratorial, or simply ignorant, miss the entire point. The definition of the word arm or arms, is very, very, very clear. (Look it up or shut up). The definition is any weapon of war or any weapon. Persons who attempt to change these definitions are evil and have evil intent. If they happen to be ignorant or naïve, then they should not be ignored, they should be educated quickly and certainly by people who do know. They should also avoid entering into discussions with intelligent individuals until they are able to gain better education or experience.

    Also those who think that people with evil intent are going to be emboldened/motivated more strongly simply because free individuals have an easy way to create something at home, are also horrifically naïve. They should also be educated or be quiet. Free people should never have to hide and act as if they were in a prison camp. Doing so implies that they really are prisoners and not free. Are we free or not?

Comments are closed.