US appeals court upholds assault weapons ban in Maryland

That's why we persistently and tirelessly fight for each and every right... including gun rights.

 

That's why I didn't bother replying .

 

Well, the obvious flaw in this logic is that government is derivative of the people and rights are natural, and not derivative of government. It is, however, government's role to protect those rights. The fallacy is that we are subjects of government. If you believe that, you don't believe in the philosophy of this nation.

 

All rifles (semi-auto, single shot, bolt-action, lever-action), nationwide, are responsible for only about 3% of gun murders (not all murders, gun murders). It's silly to ban semi-automatic rifles for that reason.

 

Especially when banning handguns, used to commit murder >20x more often than rifles of all kinds, violates the constitution.

 

I doubt blacks use many assault weapons and they suffer the most deaths per population unit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

 

My actual experience firing military assault weapons is not favorable for a few reasons.

The Army has plenty of ammo so for the government, cost is no object.

The weapon of choice is the 9mm pistol.

Assault weapons are difficult for non experts to keep aimed at targets. They bounce around a lot. While small calibers are easier to control, a pistol in the hand is easier to keep aimed.

Also, the pistol is easier to hide. Victims may not find out until way too late what is going on. The assault weapon can't be hidden.

Remember, when you chip rights away, you end up diminishing your own rights.

By the way, those attacking the NRA are after the wrong group. They are dedicated to the safe use of weapons.

 

An AR15 in 9mm, 40 10mm or 45 is an ideal home-defense weapon, better suited for that purpose in almost every circumstance than a shotgun.

 

I used to own an original, late War tanker version of the Garand in 30.06. It was one of my favorite guns. After replacing a couple of parts, particularly the OP rod and under the eye of my Da, doing a bit of tuning, it was shooting 1/2 MOA groups with open sights (in the days I could see at a distance that well); even at the time, my 11yr old daughter could shoot it far better than me, near 1/4 MOA. She loved shooting it, though she prob weighed near 85lbs.
It was very fast to reload (my Da taught me the method he was taught and refined in WWII battle) if you know what you are doing. You might get up from a 5.56 AR hit, but not likely a 30.06 hit, particularly with modern ammo.
It was a great piece. Mine made an excellent bush gun; it took 13 deer, one ELK, one bear and a moose... each with a single shot.
I traded it for a Webly with excellent 1916 Easter Rebellion Provenance. A good trade, but I have been looking to acquire another. Some manufacturer, I can't recall which, is now turning out new ones in .308.

My Da used to look at the 1st AR I owned and laugh... he called it a P....y gun; not one real men would carry.

I also had a Lee Enfield no 5 MK 1 Jungle Carbine. It was a bolt action that could be fired and reloaded nearly as fast as an M1.

Bolt action rifles are slow... right? Mad minute anyone?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYZHLuxXZ8

Trivia bit for gun history bufffs.... there was a fully auto Garand produced by Springfield. It's a little known thing...

Contrary to what many anti gun types might think. The NRA would be happy for any 2A case to make it's way to SOCOM. Considering there is what can be seen as conflicting opinions in the lower courts, this may be a vehicle that induces the SOCOM to review the case... the 4ths decision will be appealed.

 

Did you rebarrel it? Whose barrel did you use?

 

If you are referring to the Garand, I didn't rebarrel it. The gun was in nearly perfect condition; I doubt it had ever been fired and perhaps never issued ( the stock was in great condition). However, it had been handled quite a bit... when I disassembled it when I got it home, I found the OP rod was bent, so I replaced it. At the same time I replaced the trigger group with a match version ( can't remember, but I think I got the parts from Springfield).

 

1/2MOA or better from any GI barrel is, well, spectacular. You should never have gotten rid of it.

 

I have regretted it. But, I have traded other guns, several of which I later regretted losing as well.

 

Was it a Star barrel, or did you just get lucky?

- - - Updated - - -

Non sequitur. This law doesn't make owning ARs illegal.

- - - Updated - - -

Heck, "assault weapons" used in mass murders are use to kill about 12 people per year, with an average of once per year mass murder with them.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

 

Australians are not safer after their gun ban which went into full effect in 1996.

All numbers from the AUS Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports:



After the ban, homicide dropped from an already low number to a lower number, but total violent crime increased tremendously. All the ban did was cause 100's more rapes and beatings for each homicide reduction.

 

true, I have a Krieger barrel on a MI Garand arsenal rebuild and I am a Distinguished rifle shot and I doubt I can get a 1/2 MOA out of my best Garand even with Federal National Match ammo

 

Right. GI service rifle barrels usually shoot 2 MOA or so.

 

I don't take credit. The Gods smiled; they liked me in those days.

 

The above is factually incorrect. The people of the state of Maryland are no safer now, than they were before this prohibition was signed into law. The firearms and magazines that are prohibited from new sale under this legislation, are still freely available to their owners, making them able to be used in the commission of crimes should such be desired. No firearms or magazines were removed from current circulation, meaning they are still available to those who wish to use them for the purpose of committing a crime. Even if they were registered to their owners, that does not in any way making them unusable for the purpose of committing a crime, nor does it serve to make it any easier to determine who committed what crime.

Pray tell what exactly does "a little bit" amount to in round, citeable numbers?

Such was already attempted for a period of no less than ten years. It was determined that the impact of the prohibition was far too statistically minute to amount to a worthwhile endeavor of maintaining the prohibition.

The very fact that you are appealing to emotion demonstrates the lack of validity in the position you are presenting.

The united states supreme court has already ruled, three times now, that such is not and will not allowed.

Those that are calling for greater firearm restrictions have, quite literally, never demonstrated that they will ever stop their demand for new laws. Whenever they get what they call for, they move onto demanded more restrictions be implemented. The state of New York is a prime example of this, when they attempted to declare that a magazine capable of holding ten rounds of ammunition was now a so-called high-capacity magazine.

The NRA and others have no compelling reason to negotiate, as those calling for restrictions never stop demanding more.

Cease with the inane prattle about how murder should be made legal. Someone who commits murder will be prosecuted when they are found and caught. However prosecutions for firearm-related offenses are almost nonexistent. Only one out of every fifty such offenses are ever actually prosecuted, and even fewer result in a conviction.

Beyond such, the prohibition in question does not prohibit the ownership of AR-15 rifles and similar firearms. It simply states that no new ones may be sold. Those that are already owned, are still owned by those that bought them.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

The united state supreme court has ruled, in absolute terms, that a complete prohibition on an entire class of firearms, is completely unacceptable under any standard of review. To classify all firearms as so-called "assault weapons" would mean that absolutely no firearms can be prohibited from ownership.

You complain about the NRA being unreasonable, while at the same time claiming that all firearms should be prohibited. You present no reason to warrant compromise or discussion. You may as well be stating that government should issue an execution on sight order to anyone found in possession of a firearm.

 

Another brick in the wall. I support it completely

 

of course you do-you are an enemy of our constitutional rights and an ally of violent criminals whom you want to be able to operate without fear of being shot

 

There are no absolutes in law. It changes every day. Right now, the tide is turning against you..... the 4th Circuit moving against guns is no small shift in momentum. You folks be screwed.

- - - Updated - - -

Well at least you acknowledge gun control stops homicides. That is more than most of your lot will acknowledge.

- - - Updated - - -

It makes owning something illegal in Maryland.

 

All of that may be true, but they are used to losing. The NRA isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

It is silly to keep them for that reason either. Not like you need to really protect yourself

 

The philosophy of this nation is that our bootleg tea operations shouldn't have been shut down by the British. When the FBI kicks in your door, they are not your employee. Sorry if it ruins your Christmas to know such things.

 

Actually, the AUS gun ban did not stop homicides, it actually increased homicides.

The homicide rate in AUS was low and decreasing before the ban. The ban triggered a crime wave which saw violent crime surge, peaking in 2001-2002. The homicide rate went from 3.63 to 4.2. After 2002, the homicide rate resumed its downward trend. The evidence shows that if AUS had not implemented the gun ban, the homicide rate would not have spiked and would be lower than it is now.

But those facts are too far in the data for gun banners. Banners will point to the trend and claim that homicides are down, so I grant them that point and compare the "decrease" to the huge increase in violent crime - it still makes the point that the gun ban failed.