Posted on 02/22/2017 5:51:23 PM PST by Enlightened1
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that assault rifles and other so-called weapons of war are not protected under the Second Amendment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision upheld Marylands ban on assault rifles, which was passed in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. It cited a 2008 Supreme Court case, Heller v. District of Columbia, which said that weapons most useful in military service are not covered by the Constitution.
We are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are like M-16 rifles weapons that are most useful in military service which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendments reach, Judge Robert King wrote for the 10-4 decision.
Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.
Citing the Heller case, King wrote that assault rifles are devastating weapons of war whose only legitimate purpose is to lay waste to a battlefield full of combatants.
The majority concludes that the semiautomatic rifles banned by Maryland law are most useful in military service, even though they are not in regular use by any military force, including the United States Army, the decision said.
It noted that such weapons have also been used for recent mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., San Bernardino, Calif., and Orlando, Fla. making those cities synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there.
Only seven states California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York and the District of Columbia have laws banning the sale or ownership of assault rifles.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Remember the old days when lawyers actually had us believing that they were smart?
That’s not up to the government to decide. The Bill of Rights belong to the American people. We’re supposed to determine what is and what is not a Second Amendment right. Not a bunch of pedophiles in black burkas.
Meh, idiot socialists... ignore them, be ready.
The 2nd Amendment was specifically aimed at permitting The Average Joe the ZACT same weapons as the average member of regulary Gummint infantry.
Sometimes absurdity speaks for itself.
Would smeone please Define, an Anssault RIFLE, for the court pleae?
Bahh,lets all bow.
It’s called deterrence aholes
No one wants it but we reserve the right
Ridiculous. The whole point of having the arms
was so that the government could rely on the armed
populace (militia) for defense, and not upon a regular
standing army (which could be used to oppress the people, as the King had oppressed England).
I believer an assault weapon HAS to have some setting that permits full-auto fire, however briefly.
‘Assault’ is a negative and biased term (verb/adverb) denoting an ACTION! How do guns assault people?
Most Useful in MILITARY...
BUT NOT USED BY MILITARY !
I see a problem with LOGIC.
As opposed to an assault rock or pointy stick?
A boot to the head?
Moreover, any rights we do not have, the feds do not have too.
We the People delegate our authority and rights to them.
Therefore, if we do not have a right, then the Feds can’t have any assault rifles.
There is no such thing as an assault rifle the libs and media think anything that’s black and has a trigger is an assault rifle.
Molon labe
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.