Person openly carrying an AR-15. Reasonable articulable suspicion of crime?

Great Debates
301

No we werent, we were talking about the difference between "assault weapons and “hunting/deer rifles”.

There are many semi-auto deer rifles on the market. Even in CA they are not considered 'assault weapons". What you are doing is during a debate of what is the difference between “sports cars” and “passenger cars” is saying “all sports cars are two seaters.”.

Bump stocks can & should be banned, this debate isnt about them.

Yes, Deer rifles can be limited to magazine capacity** while hunting deer. ** Magazine capacity doesnt make a “assault weapon”. There are lever action, tube magazine & bolt action guns with 10+ round magazines.

Umm, no, you obviously dont know anything about calibers. Altho it is true, that most deer rifles are 30 caliber, the second most common assault weapon is also 30 caliber, and there are quite a few .45 caliber assault weapons. And yes, deer are and can be hunted with .223, .222 and .243 caliber rifles. Perfectly legal here in CA.

Many deer rifles have clips or magazines.

However, with " if I were to restrict or “ban” a type of weapon, it would be the semi-auto, " and “That would be another distinction that I would keep for hunting rifles.” you are now making up your own definitions . Not part of this debate and also shows you can’t define the difference.

In Europe and elsewhere, they actually do quite a bit of hunting with silencers.

Folding stocks are cosmetic. But indeed, a couple of the most popular survival guns, those put in top of th eline survival kits, do have such stock. But yes, such stocks are part of the common legal definition of what can make a assault weapon". However, most “assault weapons” dont have them. So, you can’t define a “assault weapon” as simple one with such a stock, you’d be leaving out hundreds of others.

Depends. A sniper will pick the 700. But our military does not use the AR 15, it uses the M16 and variants, which is a fully auto selective fire weapon.

They did indeed, and I showed you a cite that said that.

302

Perhaps in RI, such a thing is so unusual you could get away with calling the cops. RI doesnt really have free open carry, they have a form of limited open carry.

Still, even so, I would call the NON-emergency line, not 911.

However, as you have to admit, RI is a very limited segment, it is the smallest state.
In general, in states with unlimited open carry it is *not *unusual to see some bozo in the Walmart with his AR 15.

303

They can. Bazookas are illegal in the USA without a special permit. So are machine guns, howitzers, etc.

However, I am not trying to pass laws that limit your choices in kids cartoons nor am I calling the police on you for watching Ren & Stimpy.

Before one tries to pass a law banning or limiting something, it behooves them not to be ignorant about it.

304

There may be one or two

Interestingly, The NRA appears to have once had a change of heart about “open carry”

I guess context is important.

305

I live in Alabama, which, in case you don’t know, is a very gun-friendly state, and I have never seen anyone open carry an AR15 in my life. I’ve seen people open carry holstered pistols, but never an AR15. That would just be weird, and I guarantee you someone more mature and wise would approach that fool and tell them to grow up and act like a gentleman.

306

Yes it is.

307

In which case the “I want unlimited weapons!” crowd is already horrifically limited. They should be used to it by now.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to point out that Ren & Stimpy isn’t a tool that was designed to kill many targets as quickly as possible, and that that’s why you aren’t calling the cops about it or ban it.

Given my druthers I’d ban all guns, which conveniently frees me from needing to know one from the other. And I’ll be the first to concede that if you’re going to dick around with banning one type of gun over another that it ought to be based on substantive reasons - which hasn’t always happened.

308

I’ll second this - I live in Idaho, which ain’t liberal central, and I’ve never seen a long gun being carried openly in a Walmart. This despite the fact they’re sold there!

309

You kept trying to steer the conversation onto that, but I’ve always been talking about semi-auto vs not

No, I am saying that we should look at the specific capabilities of the weapon in question. If it is semi-auto, it is classified as semi-auto, and therefore should be more heavily restricted.

Bump stock can’t and won’t be banned. After someone used one to shoot up a couple hundred people, nothing much happened on that score.

My point is, thought, that you can use a bump stock, even a homemade one, with a semi-auto, it’s not going to get you much good on a bolt action.

Magazine capacity increases the lethality, which is why larger magazine guns should be more heavily restricted.

Sorry, I was using the information that you were using, so as not to complicate things more for you. Both deer and people can be hunted by anything really that shoots little pieces of metal at high speed.

And that would be something that I would define as higher lethality and therefore restrict more. Many deer rifles do not.

Did you just say that I made up “semi-auto”? I’m honored that you would think that, but there is prior art on that term.

Seems that would effect the aim, but, in any case, as gun advocates keep saying, this ain’t europe. (Do they do that because people would complain if they heard gunshots?)

I didn’t say I would define something by having a folding stock, I simply said that I would restrict guns with folding stocks.

Yes, but that wasn’t my question. My question was, which would they pick? And I didn’t ask about a sniper, I asked about a soldier leading an assault on an ISIS compound.

310

No one has asked for this. 99% of gun owners are perfectly Ok with the Federal Limitations. But not the CA limitations.

Neither are guns.

Good to know.

311

Sorry, I was talking about the sort of guns that shoot bullets, not the ones that shoot water. I should have been clearer.

312

Nope. Let us go back to post 123:

**
DrDeth:**
“The “certain cosmetic features” are what define a “assault weapon”. There is no other definition.”

k9bfriender: , *effective range, accuracy, rate of fire, caliber of bullet, stopping power, penetrating power, standard number of rounds of ammunition, ability to be used with expanded capacity, ease of modification to use for full auto or for use with bump stocks or other after market modifications?

All guns are identical in all of these ways?*"

We were debating the difference between a “assault weapon” vs a hunting rifle.

Again, you are making this about your weird definition of “assault weapon”- which no law uses. (altho some do start with they have to be semi-auto, they all go on to differ what they think is a legit semi-auto hunting rifles vs a assault weapon.

Here is a article about semi-auto rifles for deer hunting:11 Best Rifle Cartridges for Whitetail Deer | Field & Stream

None of those are considered by laws to be “assault weapons”.

Bump stocks work only on certain types of semi-autos, and they have been used exactly once in a killing.

*“Magazine capacity increases the lethality, which is why larger magazine guns should be more heavily restricted.” *This is your opinion, but it has nothing to do with the legal definition of assault weapons.

So, you are admitting you are wrong, eh?
Almost every deer rifle has a clip or magazine. Only single shot rifles do not. All bolt action rifles (unless they are the extremely rare single shot type) have a magazine.

Again, you show your ignorance of guns- but still want to ban certain one based upon your ignorance.

No, I said you are now making up your own definition of what a "assault weapon is.

Some people do think that silencers do effect the aim, but if so, it is only by a very tiny amount, only significant in match shooting. Other experts claim silencers have no effect on accuracy.

They would pick a selective fire fully auto weapon, likely some M16 version.

313

Why?. A ban won’t stop anyone from bump firing. They just make it possible to do so without practice.

Also, a pretty good bump firing device can be made from $6.00 worth of wood from Menards. Are you going to ban wood? How about hydroxylic acid while you’re at it?

Rudimentary devices can be made from rubber bands, even belt loops.

You think someone hell bent on murdering a lot of people at once is going to be thwarted by a ban on a piece of plastic? Your ignorance is showing.

314

No civilian gun is “designed to kill many targets as quickly as possible”.

315

Presuming we recognize that the technically correct definition for “as quickly as possible” is in the tens of thousands per second (typically carried out via a large bomb perhaps of a nuclear nature), I must concede that you’re technically correct.

In any practical sense of correctness, though, you’re being absurd. News flash: guns are for killing. Sure, they can also be used for target shooting, but that’s not their primary purpose.

316

That’s the primary purpose I bought many of mine for.

317

Unless you include killing animals, few guns have a primary purpose to kill people.

They are mostly used for collecting, hunting, target shooting, home protection (which could, possible but very rarely “killing people”, cowboy action shooting, ect.

There are 300,000,000 gun in this nation. Only about 10,000 are used for killing people.

318

Sure - and I understand that there are many people who buy them primarily as collectors. But that doesn’t change the fact that guns are, by design, intended to kill things. (Excepting ones that aren’t, of course: bb-guns, paint guns, water guns, etc. But I digress.)

Denying this fact is sort of like a Brony denying that My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic is, in fact, intended primarily for a preteen female audience.

319

I didn’t say “people”, now did I.

320

I suppose I should give this part of the post some attention to, given the thread we’re in.

Sure, I don’t deny that the majority of guns are used for things other than murder weapons; you can tell that fact by the fact the country hasn’t been completely depopulated.

But how many of those uses take place in the aisles of Walmart?

Collecting? Most people don’t haul their collections everywhere they go. (And if somebody drags an entire collection of semiautomatic rifles to Walmart, you can bet your ass the cops’ll be called!)

Hunting? Dunno about your Walmart, but at mine the meat is already dead.

Target shooting? I think they expect you to buy the target and take it home first.

Home protection? Walmart might take offense if you move in.

Cowboy action shooting?
.
…
…
Okay, I gotta concede that’s a possibility.

But even so, I’m still thinking that it’s more likely that the dude is carrying his rifle for less innocent reasons, if he’s packing it through the Walmart aisles.