Posted on 08/12/2014 3:39:23 PM PDT by bamahead
In what looks to be a terrible ruling for Maryland gun owners a federal judge has essentially ruled that guns that were regulated by the state of Maryland last year, including AR-15 and AK style rifles (as well as other magazine fed, semi-auto rifles with certain features), “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms,” according to a 47 page opinion by U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake.
The case in question is Kolbe et al v. O’Malley et al which named numerous plaintiffs including the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), among others which challenged the constitutionality of Maryland’s strict new gun laws.
Here are some of Blake’s other comments [emphasis mine],
Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.
First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.
The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.
As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.
Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.
Blake further points out that so called “assault weapons” are “disproportionately represented in mass shootings”. Blake’s comments are misguided at best and it would seem difficult to weigh her opinion against the Supreme Court’s Heller decision.
Blake is a Bill Clinton appointed judge.
“The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is arming a MILITIA. You don’t arm a militia with deer rifles that hold three shells.”
Sorry, but you are wrong about that.
The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The People are independent of a militia (in other words, the People can form a militia if they want, or not). However, a militia is wholly dependent on an armed People, and cannot effectively exist without one. So, which comes first? An armed People, or a militia? Simple logic.
Infringe, infringe, infringe. Now what does that word mean again? Oh well... Lets just rule by how we feeeeeeeeel about things...
A travesty of logic, that was. I’ll stand by my statement.
“It seems like the country is pretty close to dead.”
Well, it IS pretty close to a civil war or a revolution, depending on which way the cards fall.
She looks like what the little Dutch boy put his finger in.
So, according to YOUR logic, that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to arm a militia, then someone out on the frontier did NOT have the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms because...well...there WAS no militia out where he was! Unless, of course, you think a militia of ONE fit the bill.
Clinton appointee Catherine Blake is dumber than a box of hammers.
The appeal will go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with 11 Democrat appointments and 8 Republican appointments. So on the surface, the court is generally more balanced.
However, this is the east coast, so Republican justices tend to be more liberal. At the same time, Heller was very definitive, and this judge really stretched some not very good arguments.
Most federal judges are at least aware that the “assault rifle” is a fiction, of no real legal merit, any more than if the rifles were painted a different color than most.
Also that the “home defense only” argument has been eviscerated. So my guess is that she is hoping that a radical leftist president will kick her upstairs because she showed irrational loyalty to the leftist agenda.
imagine if every conservative and gun owner moved out of their north east states and moved to places like VA, NC, FL, CO and every conservative moved out of CA and moved to NM,AZ.
There would be a couple of million conservatives moving to swing states and thus, making those states solid red.
don’t say militia to most in the country , as they think it’s a group of rednecks looking to overthrow the Govt.
That is the ignorance we are facing towards the constitution.
"I can see that guns are dangerous from my house in Maryland!"...
Jeebus! What a drooling idiot.
“U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake.”
How did I know it was going to be a chick just from the headline?
You load rounds, I'll load shells. My 12 gauge fully-automatic Glock pump action AK-47 uses shells.
Passing the bar has nothing to do with it. This nimrod was born this way.
And that's when the shootings and hangings start.
Don't disbelieve that future. There are AT LEAST 1 million well armed and determined men, probably closer to 10million who will start killing anyone and everyone who works for a government agency. Local, State and Federal.
We'll call it America's Mass Murder era.
Check Martindale Hubbell.
*** AR-15 and AK style rifles (as well as other magazine fed, semi-auto rifles with certain features), “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms,”***
Really? Back in 1971 when HANDGUNS were the real target to be banned, the MSM declared military rifles to be protected due to the Miller decision, but HANDGUNS were not.
This plot was worked into many TV shows at that time such as ALL IN THE FAMILY where Archie comes out against handgun control just before he is robbed in a bar.
I bought my first AR-15 back in 1970. Wish I still had it.
****As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.***
Again bunkum. Back in 1934, handguns were originally scheduled to be heavily taxed like machine guns as it was believed RIFLES were better for home defense.
The NRA put the kebosh on that.
And shouldn’t that militia have weapons compatible with those employed by government?
Not to mention the “Man Hands”.
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.