BREAKING: Federal Judge Rules AR-15s Are “Dangerous and Unusual,” Not Protected by 2nd Amendment

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.

"Heller" is the case that found the RKBA to attach to individuals. Well, again found it. 5-4 decision, the usual suspects. Scalia wrote the majority opinion, which uses the following logic: If an unconstitutional law is in effect for long enough, it becomes constitutional. This is used to uphold the 1986 FOPA and other bans on civilian possession of firearms.

There is a "Heller II" as well, same plaintiff sought to invalidate the DC ban on assault weapons and "large capacity" magazines. That case was decided by the DC Circuit, finding that bans on assault weapons IS constitutional. Heller sought review from SCOTUS. SCOTUS declined to take up the case. Eventually, bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines will be "long standing."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Heller v. District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit 2011)

Bloggers need to stop blogging, we need to stop typing, we need to get out of our chairs and say enough is enough!

We have a very legitimate reason for doing so, and if some don’t get it, even after the trials, and executions of hundreds and hundreds of traitors in our government when the truths come out. Then too bad. PC has creeped into conservative groups, we can’t even call a spade a spade, without being demonized by every media outlet, and liberal in our nation.

If today were the day the revolution started and the Founders were leading it to restore the constitution, do you think they would have us? That second amendment is there for a reason, and we have put up with it for much too long. I fear they would say we could have stopped it, that we’ll just get in the way.

Now, you must understand that Obama does not have a freaky control fetish motivating his actions. His actions are determined by someone else, likely through Jarret, to undermine and destroy our way of life....and boy is it ripe for just that. We can no longer restore the constitution through free speech because the people behind the veil control the media, and all other information industries. Therefore it stands to reason that the Second is the ultimate end of the road check and balance granted to the public by the constitution FOR THE CONSTITUTION. Which is all that matters.

I ask everyone here what makes us so good that we are unwilling to sacrifice and give everything for it? Many did before, because they knew they had no other choice. We owe it to them to not go down like this, it’s a shame we have been burdened with the age of PC bullshit, but there is an enemy in the Oval Office. Enough is enough, and we should do it for the constitution, and for all the blood spilled before us.

You have to understand that I am not advocating violence, but a show of force. A demand for private civilian investigations and a total shut down of the federal government to perform surgery and remove the corrupt, traitorous evil that has infected the highest echelons of American government. A million armed citizens marching down the mall to Capitol Hill, and the White House will give us that at least. I am sure there are even some democrats that would support us. After they see what the second amendment was truly meant for. Anyone with dirt on any scandal will come clamoring out of the woodwork to spill their dirty guts.

If they want to start a war with the American people then they get to shoot first. Then the country will really see the American government and their true colors. Otherwise they can go quietly to the noose or firing squad. It does matter, there should not be bloodshed, except for those truly guilty.

I do not believe very many understand that we do not have much time left. A lot believe the pendulum will swing back soon, but this is it. This is the fight, here now. I know it is not pleasant or what anyone wants, but this is the way it is, and soon something like this will have to be done. That is if we want an constitutional restoration.

Yes, this isn’t hypothetical, it’s dead serious time. The men who brought us this once great country would have done something like this years ago.

It’s either fight back, through show of force or possibly secession of a few major key states. The innocent people at Waco and Ruby Ridge probably never thought it could happen to them. But it will happen everywhere, if we allow it to go on like this much longer. Anyone who says it can’t or won’t should do some research about many people in government today, and see their ties to our sworn enemies, the media, and anyone that does not believe in liberty and justice for all, but just for them. They in fact, want a cleansing of anyone who would fight them, that is their end goal. Once that is done, they will seize power. Is that a America where you want any of your children, or grandchildren living in?

...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.

What gets me about this, is that there is a subset of the population which comprises little more than 1, at most three percent of the overall population.

The members of that subset tend to be geographically concentrated in relatively small areas, likely well under 1% of the US land area.

Yet the remainder of the population is considered anathema if they do not regard that unusual subset to be "normal" and accord it rights above and beyond the remainder of the population.

How can that (less than) 3% of the population be "normal" in its enclaves, yet three percent of firearms be unusual to the point they can be restricted despite the 2nd Amendment?

I know, we're dealing with Liberals/Communists/hoplophobes.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/08/12/gun-sales-up-across-area/

BRIDGETON, MO. (KMOX) - Gun sales are up across St. Louis since the shooting of Michael Brown and subsequent nights of violence.

Sales have quadrupled at ‘Metro Shooting’ in Bridgeton according to owner Steven King. He says sales have mainly been to men, but not all:

“Probably a dozen or two dozen guns to females, single mothers. We’ve sold to black people, white people . . .

He says nearly 100 percent say they are buying them for defensive purposes. “They’re buying AR-15s, home defense shotguns, handguns, personal defense handguns something for conceal carry.” said King.

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.