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 Maryland’s 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 Amendment’s 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 ...
If SCOTUS upholds this decision we will have an interesting situation won’t we? That would make two opposing SCOTUS decisions. One claiming that only military weapons are covered by the 2nd Amendment and the other saying that no military weapons are covered by the 2nd Amendment.
In that case all laws regarding weapons of any kind would be null and void. The law would be an outlaw, a violation of the principle purpose of the law. Time to hoist the black flag and draw cutlasses.
All other post-Civil War 19th-century sources we have found concurred with Cooley. One example from each decade will convey the general flavor:
“[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure a well-armed militia… . But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms… . The clause is analogous to the one securing the freedom of speech and of the press. Freedom, not license, is secured; the fair use, not the libellous abuse, is protected.” J. Pomeroy, An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States 152–153 (1868) (hereinafter Pomeroy).
“As the Constitution of the United States, and the constitutions of several of the states, in terms more or less comprehensive, declare the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it has been a subject of grave discussion, in some of the state courts, whether a statute prohibiting persons, when not on a journey, or as travellers, from wearing or carrying concealed weapons, be constitutional. There has been a great difference of opinion on the question.” 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law *340, n. 2 (O. Holmes ed., 12th ed. 1873) (hereinafter Kent).
“Some general knowledge of firearms is important to the public welfare; because it would be impossible, in case of war, to organize promptly an efficient force of volunteers unless the people had some familiarity with weapons of war. The Constitution secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions, practices in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right. No doubt, a person whose residence or duties involve peculiar peril may keep a pistol for prudent self-defence.” B. Abbott, Judge and Jury: A Popular Explanation of the Leading Topics in the Law of the Land 333 (1880) (hereinafter Abbott).
“The right to bear arms has always been the distinctive privilege of freemen. Aside from any necessity of self-protection to the person, it represents among all nations power coupled with the exercise of a certain jurisdiction. … [I]t was not necessary that the right to bear arms should be granted in the Constitution, for it had always existed.” J. Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation in the United States 241–242 (1891).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
“Weapons of war” are exactly what our founding fathers wanted the citizenry to have. Their intent was we must have the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. A tyrannical govt is exactly what the liberals want for us.
9mm parabellum outlawed too?
I have not had time to read the decision, but the snippets posted should embarrass those who write such drivel. What is even more outrageous is that Harvie Wilkinson has in the past been mentioned as a possible SCOTUS pick, and was supposedly interviewed by W for nomination in ‘05, although I think his time has passed, fortunately.
We learned long ago, drop the leaders one my one,
MSM uses machine gun etiquette
WE DO NOT
That is a shockingly terrible ruling. The exact purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect our individual, God-given right to keep and bear weapons of war.
Remember the old days when there weren’t so many goddamn lawyers?
CC
Get this case to SCOTUS and hope Gorsuch is a Justice by then.
Fifteen judges and eight states on this court??? This and the 9th circus need to be split up.
This appeals court is uncomfortably high up the chain, given the current flexible nature of scotus at the moment.
Poppycock!
March on brother! Do NOT let .O5% of the people tell 99.905% of the people what to do
Gosh we have empathy for your plight but if you gotta go..
Go
Getting sick of MSM BS and spin
Pretty sure the Second Amendment doesn’t mention “weapons of war”. Courts are making stuff up again.
“They will make them too expensive to own or buy ammo for.”
If weapons are too expensive to own, then you take them.
“The enemy will bring to us the weapons we need to defeat them” - Mao
Which wouldn't really make sense given that, uh, that was kind of the entire POINT!
But we’re supposed to respect the courts. Right. Sure.
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.