Several recent lower court decisions have used the phrase “weapons that are most useful in military service” as a basis for ignoring the “in common use for lawful purposes” protection from Heller, etc. and upholding bans on AR-15s. It’s a technicality that conflates “like the M-16” with “[looks] like the M-16”, although AR-15s lack the selective fire capability of every single issue rifle of the world’s major armed forces. Those in the majority feel that using such a technicality is acceptable. There’s a military axiom that “Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.” Given that, it could be claimed that only a subset of “assault weapons” are “most useful in military service”, those that are actually chambered in a caliber supported by the military. Without ammo that actually can be safely fired in a weapon, the weapon is no more than a paperweight, and that introducing a plethora of new calibers willy-nilly into a military force would complicate logistics and actually be detrimental to the combat effectiveness of the unit. Given that, it could be claimed that “assault weapons” chambered in anything other than 5.56mm NATO, 7.62 NATO and .50 BMG are not “most useful in military service” and therefore not subject to banning based on that definition. It’s not without precedence – many European countries ban firearms that are chambered in military calibers but not the exact same firearm chambered in a non-military caliber, ie, 9mm x 19 vs 9mm x 21, where the latter cartridge was developed to allow sport shooters to use a 9mm pistol without running afoul of the law. Thus AR-15s in .223, 6mmx45, 6mm BR, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoor, .300 Blackout, etc, would be perfectly legal to own, as they are not “most useful in military service.
Appeals court upholds MD assault weapons ban BY REID WILSON - 02/23/17 10:36 AM EST Judge Robert King, writing for the majority, said assault weapons are not protected under the Second Amendment. Maryland’s ban on assault weapons still allows citizens to protect themselves “with a plethora of other firearms and ammunition,” King wrote. King cited shootings in Aurora, Colo.; San Bernardino, Calif.; Orlando, Fla.; Virginia Tech; Fort Hood, Texas; Binghampton, N.Y.; and Tucson, Ariz., the incident in which then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) was shot in the head. In a statement, Frosh said the ruling would protect Marylanders from mass shootings. “It is unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment,” Frosh said. http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/320799-appeals-court-upholds-md-assault-weapons-ban
Where do you think that the entire premise of this topic originated? We're all familiar with Shew v Malloy and Kolbe v Hogan. Prior to this en banc decision the 4th had kicked back the ban based on strict scrutiny. They made up the decision point of "more useful in the military" then promptly ignored Miller. What would have been more useful to you in Vietnam Nam, an M1 carbine or a semi auto AR-15 chambered in 6 mm Remington?
Which is in direct conflict with Heller, McDonald and most recently Caetano, despite the united state supreme court stating explicitly that such disregard for the second amendment cannot be allowed to stand, or be tolerated.
Judge King's son was assigned to an office I worked at before I retired It was an idiotic decision that appeared to be based on the view that it would force USSC review
Saiga circumvented this by making .223 'sporting' rifles out of the AK platform, adding a hunting stock, slightly (and easily reversible) altering the magazine coupling and chambering them in 5.56 but failing to stamp it on the weapon (its specified instead in the owners manual as .223/5.56x45). Sneaky Russians...
This is a lie. This is also a lie. And another lie. No weapon is better protected by the 2nd than the AR-15. When decision is based on lies, they are sure to not stand.
Yet the firearms and magazines used at Virginia Tech, where more people died, are still protected by the 2nd Amendment. The rifle used in Norway to kill almost three times the number of victims at Newtown are still protected. Rental trucks have no restrictions at all. Using the number of victims is a dishonest methodology for picking which weapons to ban.
So public safety isn't the driving force? Then why restrict a firearm that data shows is used on average once a year in a mass shooting to kill about 12 people a year? Shotguns, knivespecially and even bare hands are used to kill nmore people each year.
