People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules

Huff Post ^ | 02/04/2016 | Cristian Farias

[Wildbill22]

In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state's prohibition on what the court called "the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens" amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.

"In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment -- the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home," Chief Judge William Traxler wrote in the divided ruling.

Provisions that outlaw these firearms, Traxler wrote, "substantially burden this fundamental right."

[Read Write Repeat]

But the term "well regulated militia" means that this is not an unorganized rabble; it means they get "regular" practice, drill, and preparation.

I strongly disagree, as familiarity with language control leads to statism. "Regulated" being the word in question, it's meaning at the time of the amendment was well armed.

[Carry_Okie]

I strongly disagree, as familiarity with language control leads to statism.

That was the meaning of the word as used in the legal language of the day, an originalist's application. The use was similar to the term, "British Regulars" and "regulate commerce" which at the time meant to facilitate it to be "regular."

If you don't like it, amend it.

[Read Write Repeat]

There’s no need to amend what is already perfectly clear.

[Carry_Okie]

There’s no need to amend what is already perfectly clear.

In your subjective interpretation. Subjective interpretation in law is tyrannical.

You misunderstood what I originally said. If you think I am discounting the unorganized militia, you are hugely mistaken. I am saying that they need more practice, organization, and logistical support to counter the police state. For example, the unorganized militia is perfectly suited to rid the country of illegals and terrorists pursuant to a Congressional letter of marque, but they do need to understand more about how to make a legal arrest; i.e., they need to be more "regular."

Got it now?

[Read Write Repeat]

I’m for every single willing person above the age of 18 to conceal carry.

Do you get it now?

[Carry_Okie]

I’m for every single willing person above the age of 18 to conceal carry.

Yes, you are a simpleton. I have no problem with arming the people. You don't have a clue about a well regulated militia being NECESSARY. It was among other things about all the people being law enforcement officers. Everybody was to be trained with no police.

[Read Write Repeat]

Yes, you are a simpleton.

Yeah, I simply understand the second amendment.

[lepton]

Restricting arms to the militia is a meaningless limit...since the militia is “the whole of the people”.

So maybe it limits non-people... Didn’t Dred Scott v. Stanford (sic) try that?

[Spktyr]

They may not be able to run much longer. And they’re ever so slightly likely to feel bound by US v. Miller, which while a bad case, unequivocally found that US citizens have the right to keep and bear weapons of military utility.

[Spktyr]

Um, actually it was to be ‘everyone trained’ with no standing *military*, not a ban on police.

[Spktyr]

Which in turn doesn’t explain why for the first 120 years or so of this country’s existence, private citizens were allowed to own the weapons of mass destruction of their day - fully armed and armored private naval craft, some of which rivaled the battleships (ships of the line) of the day. See the East Indiamen merchant ships - some could see off first-rank ships of the line and lay waste to coastal cities with their armament - yet individuals could and did own them.

[Nailbiter]

WTF is an assault weapon?
Anything a liberal defines as such- from a feather to a tank,
I bet at some future date they will define a cat as an assault weapon.

[JediJones]

Cain demonstrated that quite Abelly.

[baltimorepoet]

Or it meant well armed. There is no reason rocket launchers and anti aircraft weapons should not be in the hands of citizens if the 2nd Amendment is for defense of the citizenry when the Army needs help or can’t do it. I would submit it is not unconstitutional to ban hunting, but is to disallow private ownership of anti-aircraft weapons.

So called "assault weapons" are still just small arms. Not sure the Founders wanted to include artillery.

[SJackson]

So called "assault weapons" are still just small arms. Not sure the Founders wanted to include artillery.

Sure they did, private ownership of artillery of their era has been allowed continuously. You can still buy them, no background check to my knowledge.

MC0623 Field Cannon w/Carriage and Implements $10,995.00

MC0623 Field Cannon w/Carriage and Implements

The carriage is made of oak and ash; painted the original Civil War color of olive drab. Heavy steel tires are 2 1/4" wide with oak felloes; 34" in diameter with 14 spokes. Tread is 45". The steel axle, wood cases as original is 1 1/4" square with a tapered spindle at each end going into a boxing which is pressed into a wooden hub. Spindle ends have a left and right hand nut that keeps the wheels in place. Diameter of the heavy wood hub with the correct reinforcing steel ring is 8". Muzzle of the barrel to the tail of the carriage in 6'10". Parts such as the trunnion plate, trunnion cap plate, lunette and trail plate, pointing rings at the end of the tail piece and many, many other odd parts are all brass. The accessories include: two trail plates, hand spike, sponge, rammer, correct heavy duty steel worm, linstock properly drilled. Shipped by truck ; freight collect. Additional crating fee of $65.00 required. CANNON FORM REQUIRED. CAN BE DOWNLOADED FROM WEBSITE.

[baltimorepoet]

LOL!

If I had $10,000 to spend on a weapon, it would probably be a Barrett M107. That, or 4 more SCARs, LOL.

[Carry_Okie]

Um, actually it was to be 'everyone trained' with no standing *military*, not a ban on police.

I didn't say it was a ban; they were to be unnecessary because the people were to be law enforcement. There were no police for nearly 100 years after the Constitution was ratified.

[Forty-Niner]

Really?

I don’t think that you can “bear” any of those crew served weapons. Neither will the courts.

In “Miller” the USSC ruled that the 2nd protects weapons that have a military use.

[Forty-Niner]

Actually “well regulated” means “efficient/accurate.” The 2nd’s purpose was to insure that those called to National military service were familiar in the use of personal weapons and required little to no rifle training by protecting the populace’s ownership and use of weapons.

Reading the 2nd using that idea in the text clarifies the Founder’s intent.

[archy]

So called "assault weapons" are still just small arms. Not sure the Founders wanted to include artillery.

You might want to discuss that point with private and amateur artillerist Henry Knox, father of the American Artillery Branch and was elected Secretary of War by Congress in 1785, and in 1789 was appointed Secretary of War in now-President Washington's new cabinet.