I beg to diffah. This is a dangerous and unusual firearm.
As a bonus the projectiles carry little ballistic evidentiary value with them.
I own several.
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.
Precisely.
Somebody please alert me when a gun kills somebody all by itself.
ZZZZZZZZ......
Happens every day evidently...
Saw one of mine creeping stealthily - STEALTHILY, mind you - out of my rifle safe.
Had to jump on and put it in a choke hold to subdue it and cow it into submission.
And - I’m not proud of this, now... I actually had to use HARSH LANGUAGE on it... racist langauge, because it was, after all, a “black” rifle.
It was NOT happy, I assure you...
I beg to diffah. This is a dangerous and unusual firearm.
As a bonus the projectiles carry little ballistic evidentiary value with them.
I own several.
“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.”
%@#&)(&(*#%^%!$0!$!@#$
What garbage!
No, moron, 2ndA is NOT about “self-defense” in the home, it is about self- and community-defense against bad government. Like you. Get that through your head!
As for “unusual” - so, would a historic bayonet be so and somehow thus bannable to own? The Geneva may have banned its use in war but I am unaware that even collectors are prohibited from having them. Gee, in theory they could use them!
Where is this “dangerous and unusual” in the 2A?
Moronic judges such as this ass are more dangerous than any gun
Have you read my short booklet ....
When Your Guns Turn on You ?
Why, no!
Do tell!
So far, I’ve been successful in subduing them. But one never knows, does one?
Hey Judge-—even if you’re right about the one percent, which you’re wrong about, that is a mighty serious one percent and I’d suggest not coming to get them.
1) Never let a liberal even touch your guns.
Good Rifle
Bad Rifle
Evil Rifle
Liberals or not you can still own a muzzle loading cannon with no restriction. A breech loader takes a little more paperwork but it can be done. Just to make the point one of my neighbors owns an 8” M115 howitzer that he restored to firing condition. And I still say a person of sound mind should be able to own anything the police or a municipality can own. One of our local ski slopes has a 105 howitzer on loan from the gummint to prevent avalanches. And I want one too.
2) Don’t even let them THINK - or is that “feel” - about touching your guns...
Yer pics just brought a tear to me eyes....
LOVE looking at pix of the chil’runs!!!
I gits so ... so... emotional....
You’d be 100% wrong about that. Puckle’s Patent precedes the revolutionary war by a decade or so. Puckle designed the first machine gun. The founders were technocrats and certainly knew about it——look it up yourself.
Holy Carp!!
Amen!
Courts can change their ruling, only you are bound by precedent.
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.