Posted on 02/05/2016 5:57:16 AM PST by rktman
In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state's prohibition on what the court called "the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens" amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at thebaynet.com ...
Right to own “scary guns”.
Pull out several weapons (both automatic and semi-automatic) lay them on the table in front of a liberal judge and he will declare everything except handguns as assault weapons every time. The truth is they don’t know what one is. Nor do any liberals for that matter. They’d declare semi-automatic AR-15’s as an assault weapon every time.
Nicely done. Unless the caveman is offended.
This did not get much attention yesterday. But, then again, the demo’s know that they can ignore any court decision they do not like, and will enforce every court decision they do like.
And they have a 5-4 number in their pocket.
Like the FN-FAL as well.
Important to not let your eyes glaze over when these 2 legal terms are presented:
Intermediate level of scrutiny vs. strict level of scrutiny.
Level of scrutiny where a right enumerated in the Constitution upon an individual is affected is required to be strict scrutiny, not intermediate scrutiny.
Such a law, as the MD and CT recent gun laws, under intermediate scrutiny catch-all phase clauses such as “for public safety” allows every and any law to be ruled as constitutional. Strict scrutiny requires that there be the naming of specific plaintiffs and defendants of injured parties because of a law existing or because the law did not exist before. “Because I said so and because it feels good” no longer holds up in a court of law.
The political era of slogan presidents and candidates has bled over into laws being passed and the courts have said no.
Not ‘assault’ weapons. Not fully auto
I can promise you a 3-1/2" super magnum BB 12GA round will be far deadlier at 20 yards than one .223 round. That's 93 steel .18 "BBs" (nearly .22LR projectiles) at 1460 fps. Going to have to ban that too.
This happened in Maryland???
Yeah, I know but I didn’t write it. Super highly edge-um-cated individ-jewels wrote it. Some people............ :>)
Heck do that with the vast majority of Americans who are not interested in firearms and you’ll find the same result. Doesn’t matter whether they’re conservative or liberal. If you haven’t handled firearms before or are ambivalent, then you probably don’t understand that.
Apparently you do not understand what it means when a court declared a fundamental right
This is a good ruling
Breathe
Citizens have a right and, arguably, a duty to own the weapons and equipment of a light infantryman, including crew served weapons, anti-tank weapons, etc.
LOL! I got it. Just waiting for nannie bloomers to pump some bucks in to an appeal to the scotus.
And to also include the equipment necessary to outfit personally owned seagoing vessels and coasters as Privateers, should congress chuse to exercise its authority to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
As, for example, chartering a Blackwater/Xe, OMTA or Cohort operation against terrorists or Somali pirates.
"Happiness is a belt-fed weapon." :-)
Actually, if you recall the precise wording of the usually-disregarded first clause of the Second Amendment, it's something a bit more than a right or duty:
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
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.
Since those citizens bearing arms [the militia] are deemed necessary to the security of the free state, it follows that their duties must include dealing with those who would dismantle or attack that state from within, giving aid and comfort to, and adhering to our enemies. In the time of the founders and constitutional authors, that would have included Tories who had supported the English cause [aka *loyalists*; loyal to the British King] and hostile/enemy Indians, as tribes, renegade groups or individuals. And even in Jefferson's day, there were difficulties with islumist nations and pirates.
Indeed, one essay at the Constitution Society suggests revitalizing the Militia for just such a purpose.
All of my firearms are Assault Weapons. My knives, nightsticks, forks, spoons, my dog and even #2 pencils. Under the right circumstances, everything I own, or can get my hands on, is an Assault Weapon.
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.