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.
“Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes,”
Gee, there are several million of them, at least. The estimate is 8.3 million as of the end of 2012. 2013 and this year have been very good years.
How often are they used in crime? Extremely rarely. Only about 3-4 percent of homicides are done with riles, and these rifles are about 10 percent of all rifles.
Probably less than 83 homicides by “assault rifles” in a year, could be as less than 40, or guaranteed less than 1 per hundred thousand. 300 million guns in the U.S, about 10,000 homicides with them in a year or about 3 per hundred thousand.
The judge is just making stuff up out of thin air.
Good point, just the kind that makes liberals get red in the face and hurl ad hominum insults.
But since 2A was clearly written to allow us to protect ourselves against tyranny, then it is obvious that if potential tyrants progress past muskets, then we as a people who wish to remain free must also progress past muskets.
And that brings us back to why lefties really want to disarm us. Crime stats don't back them up, never have. But since they can't publicly admit that they really are afraid of free men having the capability of resisting tyranny, they blame crime on gun owning NON criminals, i.e. free men.
All leftists are believers in tyranny....with them as the rulers, the chosen ones.
“The judge is a leftist with a tiny brain. How some pass the bar exam is the great question.”
She is not stupid. She is malicious. She thinks that “unusual and dangerous” is vague enough to hang her ruling on. The question is, where do you draw the line? If 3% is not “common” enough, how about 10%? 49%? There is not a single model common enough to consist of more than 3% of the U.S. stock.
The Constitution was written to limit the powers of the Feds. Judges need to back off before the people get pissed.
“Judges are usually sworn to uphold the constitution. How did this enemy agent sneak in?”
Appointed by Clinton. The same President that sold missile guidance secrets to the Chinese.
I have leftists in my family. It is clear, they would sell their first child ( most think the world is over populated) to advance their agenda.
Fascists are dangerous but unfortunately not unusual.
Active Duty/Retiree ping.
Or the Bradey handbook. {:0)
(Channeling De Niro selling Caddies in Analyze This)
Well, OK Nancy, but that means we get cannon too! They were in common private use back then. Can't have it both ways, gun grabbers!
So, even though there's a procedure for her to get what she wants, and she doesn't have the votes, we should fund a way for her to get what she wants and screw the procedure?? So....kinda like how normal people view Obama's immaculation, then.
This dip stick female judge making a decision bases on her personal’ serious doubts’ should be summarily removed from any more bench duty/responsibilities. It has been my experience and judgment, 23+ years in government, that there are too many judges appointed for income not knowledge of law
Up yours, Your Honor! ;)
Confiscation begets retribution. Pick your poison, bitch.
“Heller”
Thank you. I’m not familiar with it, but I will read it.
We are nearing the start line by inches every day. Soon someone is going to take that last leap and then the game will begin.
Most convoluted bit of nonsense to date..... Perhaps she mixed up the ‘cruel and unusual’ section? I mean after all the lefties keep yakking about the general welfare clause
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.