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.
Every good law-abiding (real law) should own one. Wish I did.
He has already gotten it wrong with the first sentence. The 2A states in the beginning its purpose, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". And who is the Militia? By FEDERAL LAW, it is comprised of all able bodied citizens.
Bzzzz! Wrong answer. Very few of the total in circulation show up at crime scenes.
particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right,
Bzzzz! Wrong answer. Defense against tyranny, such as Judge Blake, is at the core of the Second Amendment.
and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.
They certainly can be dangerous, especially to tyrants. They are only unusual in places where they are restricted.
Oh, and they are not "assault weapons" and Blake should be removed for using political rhetoric to support her pre-determined conclusion.
Wrong ditz. The core is to protect us from idiots like you.
Some muskets were rather large and crew-served too
I don’t give a rats ass what some black robed tyrant says.
Period.
Too many dang idiots on the bench.
Appointed by clinton, but from wiki: “She was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 11, 1995”
Everybody, repeat after me: “thank you, Bob Dole”
Appeal fodder.
They are not NFA which defines unusual under the law as it now stands.
That's funny, I thought the 2nd amendment was all about fighting against tyranny??? (And it seems like the AR and AK long guns would be really handy for that purpose.)
Come to think of it, the recent goings-on in St. Louis are a good example of where those guns might come in handy as well.
*rounds*
OK Judge. That’s your opinion. How do you propose to enforce it?
She is afraid.
Gun laws don’t apply to the JBTs. Left wing judges like this believe that the government should have an absolute monopoly on power.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Heller, which first recognized an individual right to own guns, said that the Second Amendment didn't apply to "dangerous and unusual" weapons, but didn't clarify what they meant by that. Most lower courts since Heller have said the exception applies to fully-automatic weapons, but SCOTUS has yet to revisit the issue.
The judge is a leftist with a tiny brain. How some pass the bar exam is the great question.
Radcliffe, Harvard Law, Clinton appointee. Figures!
Obama’s DHS is loaded with assualt weapons.
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.