Hello all. I've been lurking for a few months, but never got around to registering due to a lack of much to say without adding to the signal/noise ratio. However, after building my first AR up from a block of Evil Aluminum (many thanks to the denizens of Rifle Country for their widom on the subject too!), I realized just how right it was to have thought ye olde Clinton ban was silly all along. And with a lull in a two year old Constitutional fight against Hillary and friends on another unrelated front, the wheels in my head switched back to 2nd gear.
Forgive me if any of these ideas may be old, but I've not read about them being tried before. At least not like this...
Basic idea is to turn the tables on the antis so-called "public safety" propaganda. In a perfect world, the courts would apply the same Strict Scrutiny standard to the Second Amendment as they do to the First. But unless SCOTUS overturns the NFA (and its progeny), we are left to fight an onslaught of creeping incrementalism. So why not fight fire with fire, and pick apart the absurd claims about how evil features magically spray invisible bullets out of your hip or whatever?
Part 1: Pistol Grips
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that half the reason modern rifles have pistol grips is for ergonomics? Anybody who has used a keyboard for any period of time should be well aware of the importance of proper wrist alignment whilst pressing keys repeatedly, lest they fall victim to Repetitive Strain Injury. This is why keyboards these days have that wrist rest on them, after all. So wouldn't one incur the same risk of injury using a rifle with the ergonomic devices removed? Might even be considered an occupational hazard for professional target shooters.
Now, I've not had the misfortune of using one of those Cali-legal canted AR grips (nor any scientific study to back up my theory), but they sure look painful to me. Just one-finger-typing a few lines of random characters with my wrists twisted into an approximate position was already quite uncomfortable.
I'm no lawyer either, but perhaps Cali/NY/et al "assault weapon" owners should contact a doctor and a lawyer, and look into filing a suit from this angle against the State. Granted, it probably wouldn't be very High Road to abuse tort for monetary gain. But perhaps it would open the door for getting a permanent injunction against each AWB? Might work best in Cali given their lax liability standards?
Part 2: Pistol Grips, cont...
To the best of my understanding, the other reason for pistol grips is that since modern rifles place the bore, bolt, and stock in a single plane to reduce muzzle flip, the bottom of the receiver was the only logical place to put a handle. Seeing as nobody outside of DC has outlawed self-loaders altogether yet, what they've essentially done is outlaw technology preventing muzzle flip therein (could add muzzle brakes here too).
To work this from a public safety angle, picture what might happen at an outdoor range if a shooter fired a negligent follow-up shot while their rifle was recoiling up at an angle with a trajectory over the berm. Why, one could almost paint this like the antis just want strays to rain down on an adjacent neighborhood! Think of the children indeed...
Granted, this idea could backfire and prompt them to ban everything, but at least then all the cards would be on the table. Might also be hard to get standing for a legal challenge without an actual incident for that matter.
Part 3: Flash Hiders
With all the talk from the antis about flash hiders making shooters into ninjas or some such, perhaps the most important reason for the devices is lost in the fray. That, being, to hide the flash from the operator, not the target. This is probably quite a stretch of the public safety reversal concept, but maybe in the context of evening (or overcast day) shoots and using optics, it might carry some weight.
Basically, the (possibly silly) idea is that unhindered muzzle flashes temporaily blind the shooter, thus creating a potential for violation of rule #4. Well, "blind" isn't the right word, but since even the spark from a lighter can cause temporary retinal image burn-in, it (somewhat) stands to reason that forcing someone to withstand repeated, bright flashes of light while using a rifle is counterproductive to what they claim is "gun safety." Especially so when safety devices are readily available elsewhere.
This, like part 2 above, may carry the risk of backfire and/or the problem of standing. Just thought I'd throw the idea out there while it's in my head.
Part 4: Folding/Collapsible Stocks
For this last Evil Feature, I'm going to abandon the public safety concept for a moment, and posit an idea I can't believe nobody has tried yet (or did they?).
If the Bradys were to be believed, the adjustable stock on an AR-15 makes the entire rifle performs a stunt which would make a black hole jealous, and folds up to fit in a shirt pocket. Obviously, this is disinformation; to say the least. Not so obvious is how this ever survived a logic test in a court...
So what does the evil, adjustable stock really do? Surely it's to allow operators of different heights to adjust the stock for cheek weld, no? Therefore, every AWB ever passed is direct governmental discrimination against short people. Statistically speaking, it discriminates strongly against women, being that they're shorter on average. Right?
As such, why not challenge these laws based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment? Or would that just be too dirty to try to put even the antis and their courts in a position to defend saying they don't feel women are equal?
Anyhow, I'll shut up now. Thanks for reading either way. Assuming anyone made it this far.
Forgive me if any of these ideas may be old, but I've not read about them being tried before. At least not like this...
Basic idea is to turn the tables on the antis so-called "public safety" propaganda. In a perfect world, the courts would apply the same Strict Scrutiny standard to the Second Amendment as they do to the First. But unless SCOTUS overturns the NFA (and its progeny), we are left to fight an onslaught of creeping incrementalism. So why not fight fire with fire, and pick apart the absurd claims about how evil features magically spray invisible bullets out of your hip or whatever?
Part 1: Pistol Grips
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that half the reason modern rifles have pistol grips is for ergonomics? Anybody who has used a keyboard for any period of time should be well aware of the importance of proper wrist alignment whilst pressing keys repeatedly, lest they fall victim to Repetitive Strain Injury. This is why keyboards these days have that wrist rest on them, after all. So wouldn't one incur the same risk of injury using a rifle with the ergonomic devices removed? Might even be considered an occupational hazard for professional target shooters.
Now, I've not had the misfortune of using one of those Cali-legal canted AR grips (nor any scientific study to back up my theory), but they sure look painful to me. Just one-finger-typing a few lines of random characters with my wrists twisted into an approximate position was already quite uncomfortable.
I'm no lawyer either, but perhaps Cali/NY/et al "assault weapon" owners should contact a doctor and a lawyer, and look into filing a suit from this angle against the State. Granted, it probably wouldn't be very High Road to abuse tort for monetary gain. But perhaps it would open the door for getting a permanent injunction against each AWB? Might work best in Cali given their lax liability standards?
Part 2: Pistol Grips, cont...
To the best of my understanding, the other reason for pistol grips is that since modern rifles place the bore, bolt, and stock in a single plane to reduce muzzle flip, the bottom of the receiver was the only logical place to put a handle. Seeing as nobody outside of DC has outlawed self-loaders altogether yet, what they've essentially done is outlaw technology preventing muzzle flip therein (could add muzzle brakes here too).
To work this from a public safety angle, picture what might happen at an outdoor range if a shooter fired a negligent follow-up shot while their rifle was recoiling up at an angle with a trajectory over the berm. Why, one could almost paint this like the antis just want strays to rain down on an adjacent neighborhood! Think of the children indeed...
Granted, this idea could backfire and prompt them to ban everything, but at least then all the cards would be on the table. Might also be hard to get standing for a legal challenge without an actual incident for that matter.
Part 3: Flash Hiders
With all the talk from the antis about flash hiders making shooters into ninjas or some such, perhaps the most important reason for the devices is lost in the fray. That, being, to hide the flash from the operator, not the target. This is probably quite a stretch of the public safety reversal concept, but maybe in the context of evening (or overcast day) shoots and using optics, it might carry some weight.
Basically, the (possibly silly) idea is that unhindered muzzle flashes temporaily blind the shooter, thus creating a potential for violation of rule #4. Well, "blind" isn't the right word, but since even the spark from a lighter can cause temporary retinal image burn-in, it (somewhat) stands to reason that forcing someone to withstand repeated, bright flashes of light while using a rifle is counterproductive to what they claim is "gun safety." Especially so when safety devices are readily available elsewhere.
This, like part 2 above, may carry the risk of backfire and/or the problem of standing. Just thought I'd throw the idea out there while it's in my head.
Part 4: Folding/Collapsible Stocks
For this last Evil Feature, I'm going to abandon the public safety concept for a moment, and posit an idea I can't believe nobody has tried yet (or did they?).
If the Bradys were to be believed, the adjustable stock on an AR-15 makes the entire rifle performs a stunt which would make a black hole jealous, and folds up to fit in a shirt pocket. Obviously, this is disinformation; to say the least. Not so obvious is how this ever survived a logic test in a court...
So what does the evil, adjustable stock really do? Surely it's to allow operators of different heights to adjust the stock for cheek weld, no? Therefore, every AWB ever passed is direct governmental discrimination against short people. Statistically speaking, it discriminates strongly against women, being that they're shorter on average. Right?
As such, why not challenge these laws based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment? Or would that just be too dirty to try to put even the antis and their courts in a position to defend saying they don't feel women are equal?
Anyhow, I'll shut up now. Thanks for reading either way. Assuming anyone made it this far.
