Assault rifles are NOT protected under the Second Amendment, US appeals court rules

Daily Mail Co. (UK) ^ | 23 February 2017 | Associated Press and AFP

[Texas Fossil]

A US appeals court has ruled that military-style assault weapons are not protected under the US Constitution, dealing a blow to gun rights activists. In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the 45 assault weapons banned under Maryland's law are not protected by the Second Amendment. 'Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,' wrote Judge Robert King, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

While the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to bear arms, legal battles have raged for years over what the guarantee includes. The ruling upheld a law from Maryland, which bans 45 different kinds of assault weapons and sets the limit on gun magazines to 10 rounds.

[shelterguy]

I have several flintlock rifles and pistols. At one time they were “weapons of war”.

[teeman8r]

agree. civilities were pushed to the limit on the right this past decade... but civility remained... now seeing the uncivil actions from the left, the dam is about to burst... stay well and keep your powder dry

[FreedomPoster]

[IYAS9YAS]

The decision misreads the Miller case, which, if construed in the narrowest possible way, said that *only* military weapons are protected by the Second Amendment.

Correct, and IIRC, the fact that Miller didn't show up to his appeal, and his attorney did him no favors, it was ruled that a sawed-off shotgun was not a military weapon, thus not protected under the 2nd Amendment. The reality of it is, sawed-off shotguns were used regularly in WWI, and had either Miller or his attorney bothered to show this, the Miller decision would have gone the other way.

[indthkr]

2nd Amendment bump for later.....

[bruoz]

"I assume you have the right to own machine guns, tanks, bombers, fighter jets etc"

Many U.S. citizens do own the above. Do a little research before you post nonsense.

[FreedomPoster]

1897 Winchester Trench Gun

A pump shotgun with a bayonet lug.

http://www.guns.com/2013/02/26/1897-winchester-trench-gun/

[Puppage]

The right is given to the people, not the militia.

We The People ARE the militia.

[Travis McGee]

[Nailbiter]

thx

[IYAS9YAS]

Wasn’t there a ruling once that said shotguns were not used in wars, so they weren’t protected?

It was United States v. Miller, and the actual issue was that short-barreled shotguns were not used as weapons of war.

They were, in fact, used by the tens of thousands in WWI by the United States Army. However, since neither Miller nor his attorney showed up to present this evidence as an argument to the court in his defense, it was ruled that since short-barreled shotguns were not used by the military, they were not protected under the Second Amendment.

[Travis McGee]

[Texas Fossil]

Some citizens do legally own tanks, bombers (Confederate Commemorative Air Force), and old fighter jets. Machine guns can be owned, but a class III gun license is required.

[Texas Fossil]

Agree

[Texas Fossil]

Agree

[Godebert]

"Thank God this ruling only applies to the state of Maryland."

This court of black-robed criminals has jurisdiction beyond Maryland. Stay tuned.

[Uncle Sham]

This "ruling" applies NOWHERE. The term "shall not be infringed" says so and until these three words are removed from the U.S. Constitution, judges can eat their own shit as far as gun rights are concerned. Do not obey them.

[Uncle Sham]

OK, so it’s four words. Same result.

[backwoods-engineer]

I agree, but it doesn’t matter if the decision misreads the revealed Word of God— it is these judges that have the power. If they day Marylanders can’t own an AR15 or a Glock 17, then they can’t own them. The state and the cops will back these judges to the hilt, buried in your back.

[teeman8r]

thanks