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 ...
Actually he is spot on and You are the one who is wrong.
Can I quote You on That?
The Heller decision was the first Supreme Court to consider the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. That careful analysis of the words led to the decision that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
The Heller decision left it up to future courts to determine what is and what is not an infringement.
Future 2nd Amendment issues will be decided by defining want is an Infringement.
A well regulated Internet being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Modems shall not be infringed.
And what is the purpose of the 2nd amendment?
A: Hunting
B: Self Defense
C: Freedom from Govt.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they were totally ignorant of USvsMiller. If not they probably don’t care and hope that SCOTUS will uphold the ruling and Miller will be ignored and forgotten.
You can quote Justice Scalia’s written opinion for the case, these are his words. The link to his supreme court opinion is at the bottom of the posting.
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.