Feds admit in court that AR-15's are not weapons of war

[montana]

The quoted definition of "Military Equipment" addresses only high-capacity magazines, components for full-auto conversion, and weapon stabilization technology. It says nothing whatsoever about the firearms themselves.

Yes it did, it mentioned all semi autos: Parts and components specifically designed for conversion of a (semi-automatic firearm) to a fully automatic firearm;

Also, Gottlieb shows an incredible ignorance of the facts in saying: "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."

That is blatantly false. Full-auto versions of rifles like the AR15 were adopted and fielded by the world's armies years before the semi-auto variants were developed for the civilian market.

You are correct but in limited trial numbers. The US did not officially adopt the M-16 until a year after the AR-15 was being sold to civilians,"1964".
Here are a few excerpts :https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/artic...n-50-years:
fromMcNamara's super rifle never materialized. By 1966, both the Army and Marine Corps decided to issue M-16s to all troops heading to Vietnam, opening the door for the gun to become the military's standard firearm.

So, as the Pentagon and the Army dithered, Colt went in a different direction and pitched the guns to private shooters. In 1963, advertisements started popping up in magazines such as Guns.

"With Colt's new AR-15 Sporter, you're ready for a new hunting adventure," a full-page spread declared. "If you're a hunter, camper or collector, you'll want the AR-15 Sporter."

Unlike their military counterparts, these guns could only fire single shots. Otherwise, they were functionally the same weapons. The AR-15 Sporter would set you back just shy of $190 — around $1,485 in 2016.

LOL. Anyone who thinks that this definition of "military equipment" is going to stop the anti-gun crowd from calling rifles like the AR15 "weapons of war" is severely self-delusional.

This I will agree with but: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.”