Federal Appeals Court Says Assault Rifles Are ‘Weapons Of War’ Not Protected By Second Amendment

NY Daily News ^ | 02/22/17 | JASON SILVERSTEIN

[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.

[so_real]

Hope someone tells these boobs that *all* weapons are weapons of war. Thank goodness our Founders thought to ensure the People's ability to make war with a government making war upon the People.

[DBrow]

The Miller decision said exactly the opposite.

[LambSlave]

Oh the irony. Didn’t United States v. Miller determine the defendants couldn’t legally possess the sawed off shotgun they had because the Second Amendment ONLY PROTECTED WEAPONS THAT WERE USED TO EQUIP THE MILITARY. Liberal judges literally having it both ways.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Until 1956, the average citizen could buy better personal weapons than the military used.

Army used muzzle loading smoothbores, citizens used rifles. Army adopted muzzle loading rifles, citizens used breachloaders.

Army adopted single shot breachloaders, citizens used tube fed lever action rifles.

Army adopts a bolt action rifle, citizens were using lever action rifles, slide actions, early semi-auto rifles and experimenting with full auto rifles.

1936 army adopted a semi-auto rifle. Citizens had been using them since 1888.

1956 US Army adopts a full auto rifle, something a citizen could not own.

An early citizen owned semi-auto rifle. You can see a similar one used in RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY.

[Georgia Girl 2]

He’s right assault rifles are weapons of war and illegal for the public to own. Semi automatic tactical rifles are not assault rifles. That’s why you can buy them at any gun shop.

[Consistent]

You can tell how predetermined the decision was by the simple logical fallacies used.
They determined that AR-15’s are “weapons of war” because they are “like M16’s, in that they are most useful in military service.” Since they never compared against a weapon not “most useful in military service,” they could have never found anything other than supporting the ban. Bad logic.
And yeah, I guess Mini 14’s aren’t weapons of war, nor are M1As, since they weren’t discussed?

[stylin19a]

when did we get so “enlightened” ?

I wonder if and active duty Marine that lives in Maryland can have a personal AR-15 ?

[arthurus]

“Weapons of war” is what the 2nd is all about. What other purpose for it could there be in the basic law of the land?
Protecting the rights of hunters? That is not a momentous consideration and would not be in a constitution. And it says the RKBA ‘shall not be infringed.” It does not say “some arms.” Every gun law that simply does not recognize the uninfringability of the 2nd is unconstitutional.

[dasboot]

Mass’ A.G.Healy declared ownership of ‘military weapons’ illegal.

Guess what: Mass police are exempt from that restriction.

Getting Ready.

[pacificus]

Is this fake news? If not...Time to start ignoring impedent judiciary. Impeach and remove!

[Kellis91789]

Zactly right.

[Axenolith]

Wasn’t it Miller that stated that a sawed off shotgun wasn’t protected because it WASN’T a common military weapon (which was bull**** too since they were utilized)?!

[Axenolith]

Actually, he’s right. Assault rifles are have the capability of select fire, you can switch from single shot per trigger pull to a burst or full auto, an intermediate size cartridge and a detachable magazine.

There is no such thing as a semiautomatic (one shot cycle per trigger pull) assault rifle. There may be rifles that look like them, but they are not.

[Axenolith]

It is correct though, the military uses REAL, as defined, select fire weapons. A true interpretation of the 2nd would repeal prohibitions against our possession of those!

[dr_lew]

Jefferson owned a cannon, I believe, which he loaned to the Revolutionary Army. A TRUE interpretation of the 2nd, as you say, would allow possession of nuclear missiles.

OK, Ain’t gonna happen. Just sayin’.

[Axenolith]

I’ve read some back and forth on that in the past and the conclusions I saw indicated significant large area effect weaponry wouldn’t be covered for a variety of reasons (use involves policy, not direct fire, not a small unit crew served weapon).

Since, as I recall, “destructive devices” weren’t banned in the ‘86 legislation that sacrificed our ability to own new manufacture fully automatic weapons, you can still own a modern device over .50 cal federally, and would default to your states laws. You can also own any size old school cannon pretty much unregulated I believe.

The most cogent 2nd interpretation I’ve seen and tend to agree with is that the citizenry is allowed to field any weapon available to the individual infantryman of the day. That would include direct fire rocketry like a LAWS or RPG, but not autonomous ones like a Javelin or Hellfire. The limit on that rifle wise was about 20mm, short of designing a larger bore recoilless that weighed under 100 pounds (you could order surplus 20mm AT rifles from magazines in the 50’s and 60’s).

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article Enlightened1. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

From a related thread ...

Patriots are reminded that the only specific power to regulate arms that the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds deals with the armed forces as evidenced by clauses 12, 13 and 16 of Section 8 of Article I.

In other words, not only have the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate firearms outside the context of the military, but a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that powers not expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds are prohibited to the feds.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

In fact, it is disturbing that federal gun regulations dealing with non-military use arms seem to have first appeared in the books during the time the FDR Administration, FDR and Congress infamous for making laws based on powers that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds.

Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control

Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

Remember in November ’18 !

Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist justices off of the bench.

Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.

• “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

[dr_lew]

Thank you for that response to my “off the cuff” declaration. I agree this expresses the general intent of the 2nd Amendment, as far as I understand it!

Interesting about the cannons, though. A battleship of the 18th century was nothing but a bunch of cannons, as far as weaponry, but I suppose a personal navy was simply beyond imagination.

Or, if one such presented itself, it would be dealt with as an extranational force, as the occasion might demand.

Calling James Bond!

[servantoftheservant]

HA!! I wonder how the judges couldn’t see this obvious contradiction.

[x_plus_one]

The pennsylvania constitution of 1776 was the model for the US constitution of 1789 - and reads nearly the same. One exception is that the right to bear arms is for the INDIVIDUAL and not any group - specifically.

Artile XIII: XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Constitution_of_1776