US appeals court upholds assault weapons ban in Maryland

What this ruling is a consequence of, is lower courts refusing to follow and accept the precedent set by the united states supreme court, because they do not like it. They are demonstrating all the integrity of a petulant child throwing a tantrum over not getting their way. They are refusing to acknowledge the precedent set by not only Heller but also McDonald and now Caetano which went even further than either previous ruling, by holding that firearms may not be prohibited simply because they are dangerous by their nature, or because they are unusual when compared to the muskets of the eighteenth century.

Incorrect. Antonin Scalia correctly stated that the Heller ruling was not correct platform for undertaking an exhaustive analysis of every single firearm-related restriction in existence. To do such would be to legislate from the bench.

 

"Weapons of war"?

Would that also make my Mossberg 500 and my Beretta and Glock handguns bannable? I guess muzzle loaders, lever action rifles, and revolvers could also be banned because they were used in war. What a stupid made up ruling.

 

Of course, Scalia did not undertake a very detailed analysis of every gun law but he did say enough to give the lowers courts reason to believe that bans on assault weapons and assault magazines are perfectly Constitutional. Let's look at some passages from the ruling that is the subject of this thread:

"Criminals armed with the banned assault weapons possess a 'military-style advantage' in firefights with law enforcement officers, as such weapons 'allow criminals to effectively engage law enforcement officers from great distances' and 'their rounds easily pass through the soft body armor worn by most law enforcement officers.'

"For their part, large-capacity magazines enable shooters to inflict mass casualties while depriving victims and law enforcement officers of opportunities to escape or overwhelm the shooters while they reload their weapons. Even in the hands of law-abiding citizens, large-capacity magazines are particularly dangerous. The State’s evidence demonstrates that, when inadequately trained civilians fire weapons equipped with large capacity magazines, they tend to fire more rounds than necessary and thus endanger more bystanders....

"In the wake of Heller, four of our sister courts of appeals have also rejected Second Amendment challenges to bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, including two (the Second and District of Columbia Circuits) that utilized an analysis similar to the district court’s....

"We conclude — contrary to the now vacated decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are 'like' 'M-16 rifles' — 'weapons that are most useful in military service' — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach."
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

 

Conclude what you want. I'm going to buy another 20 Magpul 30's. So are a lot of other citizens. Have a nice night.

 

criminals are going to have banned guns and the idiotic decision guarantees that criminals will have advantages over honest citizens. Cops have machine guns so that argument is completely full of bovine excrement

the decision is based on DICTA in heller and totally ignored the ACTUAL HOLDING

ar 15 rifles and MI carbines are in common use. The USA government SOLD HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MI CARBINES to civilians for 4 decades

those judges need to be removed from office as violating the constitution

If I were in charge-they would be sentenced to prison

 

Those polls/surveys on gun ownership are not even remotely accurate.

Who in their right mind would tell some pollster on the phone if they own guns or not? No me and not any gun owner I know.

The number of guns bought each years (image below) continues to smash previous records each and every year.

And aren't these the same polls that said Hillary was going to win by a landslide?

 

First and foremost, there is no such thing as a so-called "assault magazine"

Secondly, both Heller and McDonald ruled that the second amendment protects firearms that are in common use, thus meaning commonly owned, for lawful purposes. Firearms such as the AR-15 are very popular in the united states, and countless millions of them are owned.

Third, Caetano reiterated that the second amendment protects all bearable implement, even if they are dangerous by their very nature of being firearms, and even if they are of an unusual configuration when compared to firearms of the eighteenth century.

This is all in addition to the previous ruling of Miller which stated firearms suitable for militia duties were protected by the second amendment.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

There is quite literally no legal basis upon which this ruling stands.

Law enforcement possesses similar or greater firepower already, making it a moot argument.

No such evidence was actually presented, because no such evidence exists.

Which means nothing. If a ruling is legally incorrect, it is legally incorrect regardless of how many lower courts support it.

Heller did not single out M16 rifles, or similar firearms, as being beyond the scope of the second amendment. This is what was said on the matter.

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

Reading Heller and its citation of Miller the only firearms that may be singled out as not being protected by the second amendment, under the case as it was presented, are sawed off shotguns and machineguns. Since Heller relied exclusively on readily available, privately owned firearms, these issues are moot. The AR-15 is not, and never has been, a weapon of war. It is a privately owned, civilian rifle capable of nothing more than semi-automatic fire, making it no different than any other rifle that has been freely sold on the private market, and marketed towards hunters and sportsmen, since the beginning of the twentieth century.

 

So you disagree with the FBI that proved so called "Assault Weapons" do not significantly appear in any Crime Metric, NYPD has also proved the same true, at no time has any Assault Weapon Ban ever significantly reduced Crime, yet the BannerRhoid movement keeps pushing for them.

 

Horsepoop.
'Assault weapons' are in common use for the traditionally legal purposes of a firearm.
'Assault weapons' are neither"dangerous" nor "unusual", let alone both together.
These two facts, alone, negate your entire argument.

 

Given the plain language of the Second Amendment, I would actually be surprised if "weapons of war" were not constitutionally protected- at least those commonly used by infantry units. The gun lobby, however, has tried to make the militia portion of the Second Amendment irrelevant for decades and they finally succeeded in 2008. That opened the door to the lower courts being able to justify bans on military-like weaponry. So if you're complaining about assault weapons bans then you have no one to blame but your own side.

 

do you realize how stupid this argument is? the second amendment was designed to RECOGNIZE a right the founders believed from the start of human existence Claiming that right is dependent on membership in a government run entity completely demonstrates a lack of understanding of the entire foundation of the constitution.

 

Miller, Heller, McDonald, and now Caetano all reference a single, consistent point across all four rulings. The second amendment applies to and protects commonly available and owned firearms. This applies whether it is handguns, or rifles such as the AR-15 and other similar models. Simply claiming that they are military-like does not nothing to address these facts, or put them beyond the scope of protection provided by the second amendment.

 

Right.

Many seem to think 2A grants RKBA and the 1st Grants the right to free speech. The FF believed these were fundamental human rights, rights no government could grant or revoke. The BoF was written originally to explicitly limit government power to infringe on these rights.

 

The institution of the militia certainly pre-existed the Second Amendment. If you really want to see how the Second Amendment was originally intended to be practiced then go visit Israel. You'll see young soldiers with assault rifles walking around everywhere. Military service is compulsory for both men and women. Israel feels vulnerable in the midst of Arab nations just like America did in its early days. They want their citizenry to be well prepared militarily. What has happened in America? Over time, American gun owners have become lazy, apathetic, selfish, less patriotic and a lot less enthusiastic about militia service. They have become content with the US military taking over their traditional duties while still wanting to keep their guns.

 

And the crystal ball in your time machine told you this when?

 

And there is nothing in any of the available historic texts of the united states, to suggest that the existence of the militia was absolutely contingent upon existence of the second amendment. However there is evidence to show that the existence and arming of the militia was absolutely contingent upon the public being able to own firearms appropriate for militia and military duties. That is why the militia act specified that members were to furnish their own arms.

What happened is that the united states government chose to violate the constitution, and create a standing army that was maintained during times of peace, while simultaneously declaring that the militia was no longer legal.

There is nothing to suggest that those who served in the militia were told that they must give up their firearms after their service was completed, or once they were too old to participate further.

 

Members of the BM either lie about it or are ignorant of it and refuse to understand it. that is why those people who claim a militia requirement demonstrate-beynd ANY doubt-that they have ZERO understanding of our constitution. we see one bannerrhoid advocate claim that you have to be in the militia and that makes no sense. How can a militia operate if people who are called up in an emergency have no access to firearms before they are called up

 

that's idiotic.

I have a great idea-start trying to confiscate peoples arms and kill them if they don't turn them in, I suspect those people you call lazy etc would make your existence here on earth rather tenuous very quickly. your idiotic attempts to pretend that one has to be in the militia to own guns is as silly as saying you have to be a member of the press to have free speech.

and I tire of the dishonesty of your arguments. Its obvious that your hatred of gun owners is based on our politics. This charade that you present of trying to pretend its about public safety doesnt work

 

Their objectives require the deliberate detachment of the Constitution from the underlying context of the history, experience and wisdom of its authors to suit their political power objectives. They can't rewrite it, but they can try to convince their followers of the legitimacy their reinterpretation.
The problem they face with original Constitutionalists like Scalia, is the body of the FF's papers, recorded debates, prior to and during the drafting of the Constitution don't support their narrative. Though born in the US, I was raised abroad in one of the most citizen arms restrictive nations on earth and got to witness government abuse most of my life, including politically sanctioned killings of it's own citizens. Most Americans are entrenched in a complacency were they have no true understanding of their own Constitution and the guarantees and protection it provides them. One thing the Constitution provides is that power is derived from the people, but that also means citizens must be responsible and accountable for their own governance... abdicate that and you risk being ruled, not governed... there is a difference. While an natural born American, I also have the perspective of an outsider, give up your rights for self protection and you put your liberty at risk.

 

Absolutely incorrect. The militia preamble is nothing more than a statement of principle—because Article I section 8 controls.
If, as you argue, it was supposed to do more—that it was supposed to somehow limit the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” to somehow be a mere guarantee of a “state’s right to an armed militia” or an “individual militia member’s RKBA in militia service,” then it did not become irrelevant in 2008. It really became irrelevant on June 21, 1788, when the very Constitution itself was ratified.

In Article I Section 8, the Constitution gives Congress the sole, exclusive power to organize, arm, equip, and discipline the militias. Congress controls how many, and who may be members. It has the absolute power to include you, or to exclude you. And if Congress condescends to allow you to be a member of the militia, then Congress controls the beginning and the end—the character and the length of militia service. Congress alone decides what, if any, weapons the militia may have, how they will be trained to use them, and when, if ever, they may be used. And all this was decided before the 2nd Amendment was put to paper.

It is really quite simple. Any argument which holds the militia preamble limits the RKBA to militia service chooses to read the Constitution in direct conflict with itself. There can be no "right of the people" when the "right" is limited to existing under the total domination of the government whose power the "right" was supposed to restrict. The only way to avoid this conflict is to argue that the militia preamble somehow repealed Congress’ total power over the militias in Article I section 8. You must admit this conflict and find a way around it—or confess the argument is without any foundation in law or fact (which it indeed is).

The Bill of Rights was drafted with one penultimate purpose—to impose limits on the power of the federal government. How can the 2nd Amendment be a limitation on the power of government if it takes the pre-existing individual RKBA and sacrifices it to the total power of Congress over the militia? The “militia only” interpretation makes a mockery of the amendment. It takes what is termed “the right of the people” and instead makes it a privilege which Congress has the total power to grant or deny.

And here I thought the blame should lie upon the heads of those who propose these bans, and work to appoint judges who would enforce these bans….

Yes, it did. It pre-existed as an institution of government—controlled and organized by government. In its pre-existing form the institution was controlled by the states—and the states chose to rely upon the broader pre-existing RKBA as the source of militia arms rather than incur the expense of providing them to the militia members.

The Constitution changed who controlled the arming of the militia to Congress. Congress was given the power to continue—if it wished—to rely upon the individual RKBA as the source of militia arms. Congress was also given the power to arm the militias directly and thereby divorce the militias from their prior reliance on the individual RKBA. Congress was further given the power to raise standing armies—which were universally feared as the engine of tyranny—while at the same time Congress could destroy the militias by neglecting to use its power to arm them.

The 2nd Amendment first restated (to Congress) the principle that a proper militia rather than a standing army was the best way to secure a “free state” (i.e. a state whose citizens did not fear a federal tyrant as commander in chief subverting a standing army to his own ends). The 2nd Amendment then recognized the pre-existing individual RKBA—thereby ensuring that Congress’ power to divorce the militias from their original source of arms was not also a power to control and destroy that original source.

The citizen controlled militia ideal is a fantasy. It never existed in America. The militia has always been controlled by government—first by the states—and then with the Constitution’s adoption by Congress. The first rule for volunteering in a militia is that government must accept me. I cannot order or compel the government to accept me as a militia member because government totally controls it. Still less do I have any power to order the government to provide me with or allow me to carry any weapon at all in militia service—for again government totally controls it. To the extent that I have any power at all over militia issues it lies within the ballot box—where I vote to choose my representatives.

Have gun owners become lazy? Perhaps. We gave up any power over the militia to Congress in 1788, and we have been content with how Congress has controlled it ever since. We gave Congress the power to create a standing army as well, and we have been content to allow Congress to continue to control this function of government. But we will not permit gun control advocates to assume that the creation of a federal standing army gives Congress the power to destroy the individual RKBA. To allow Congress to destroy a recognized limitation on its power found in the BoR—by allowing Congress to create a condition where it can claim it has “taken care of the security problem” and the limitation is no longer necessary—is a recipe for disaster. Short-sighted anti-gunners who advocate for this will find it hard to make use of their slingshots when the government uses the very same logic to evade other restrictions in the BoR and comes after other rights they hold more dear.

---

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Justice Brandeis, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (192 (Dissenting opinion).

 

This has been the case since Miller and reiterated in Heller.
Heller -- expanded- the kinds of firearms protected by the 2nd to include those NOT suitable for service in the militia.

Unsupportable nonsense, believed only by those who do not understand current jurisprudence.

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

Please provide evidence that the ruling would save lives.