US appeals court upholds assault weapons ban in Maryland

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-guns-idUSKBN1610JY


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote, referring to the "military-style rifles" that were also used during mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, San Bernardino, California, and Orlando, Florida.

 

Time for Trump to get a few of them right wing friends of the second amendment supreme Court justices confirmed .

 

The 4th Circuit is probably THE most conservative federal circuit in the country. It is why the government wants terror cases to be heard there.

 

its one of the most laughably intellectually bankrupt opinions I have ever read by Clinton fluffing judges who hate the second amendment, Heller and the individual right. "weapons of war" makes no sense given that the Garand rifle-the single individual weapon that has been used to kill more enemy combatants than any other military rifle in US history is still legal in Marxist-lite Maryland yet the AR 15 which has never been used (in the banned configuration) is not legal. Its time to impeach judge King (who I know and has no clue about firearms other than Clinton didn't like them) and the rest of those twits who violated their oath in office

- - - Updated - - -

you are confused-its the most STATIST circuit in the country-it worships government power

 

The Mini-14 in its stock configuration, the same rifle used to kill 70 people in Norway, is still legal. Handguns, which have been used to kill 90 times as many people in Maryland as all rifles of all types, are still legal. At least until Maryland defines them to be "like" M16s.

 

I am writing my senator and congressman today to request impeachment inquiries be started against King and the other idiots on that court. The "weapons of war" standard is so vague that its worthless as those statist fluffers made that term up. They are directly in contempt of Heller and Miller and should be removed from office

 

I am not confused. I just don't have tears in my eyes. Must burn you still. Sorry. Not Sorry.

 

Ayuh,.... This will be over-turned quite soon,....

 

Are the people of Maryland any safer?

 

Yes, they are much safer now. a 10-4 ruling against assault weapons and for magazine limits out of the 4th Circuit does not bode well for the NRA. They should move their headquarters to California in protest.

 

How much safer?

 

A little bit. When all the other states or the federal government enact a similar ban based on the Maryland ruling, then people get safer and safer every day.

 

Well, they didn't actually prohibit ownership, so all those out there are still out there. There's not a single crime that someone can use a AR for that couldn't be committed with another firearm. According to Mother Jones, "assault weapons" used in mass murders account for about 12 deaths per year, so based on Maryland's population, if the odds held going forward, and anyone that wanted to use an AR for a mass murder couldn't get one or use another weapon for one, the numbers say that it would take 4 years to save a single life. Meanwhile, Maryland loses about 300 a year to handguns and 60 to knives, with a 35% homicide clearance rate.

Talk about missing the point.

 

Depends on whether it is your loved one's life that is saved once every 4 years. I have never been coy about this. Any restrictions/limits we can get is a step toward being able to restrict handguns as well. The NRA chooses to be unreasonable ergo the low hanging fruit has to be cleared to get to the rest.

 

This is what happens when ignorance and agenda sits on the bench.
Please point out the "weapon of war"

 

Based on the argument presented by the majority in this case, handguns are more protected than ever. And you're not actually saving any lives, as ARs are still available and any firearm can be substituted for ARs for mass shootings.

 

I really don't see their logic when they claim an AR-15 is sufficiently "like" an M16 that it doesn't have 2nd Amendment protection when Miller, which the majority references, clearly protects "weapons of war", and also how they can then ban the sale because it's "like" an M16 when Maryland law allows the purchase of NFA items including M16s.

 

Not only is this ruling not based on actual fact, it is also in direct violation of not only Heller and McDonald but also Caetano as well. Especially Caetano where the supreme court took issue with lower courts outright ignoring precedent set by both Heller and McDonald.

According to the united states supreme court, the second amendment protects all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even if they did not exist at the time of the founding.

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

 

Because there is none. Their decision is based on alternate facts as no military anywhere issues or uses AR15s.

But, even if they did:
Does an AR15 have a reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia?
As a 'weapon of war', it must.
As such, the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

 

Interesting obfuscation. Evidently mr King wasn't aware that the intent on the amendments adoption that muskets of the day were considered weapons of war. So, quite literally, there is no extension to grant? That he and his colleagues feel that this was even something that they could rule on seems tenuous at best.

 

The truly amazing thing about this comment is that it ignores the idea that trading safety for liberty doesn't have impact. The translation of this is very simple. Every incremental degradation of the individual right becomes an incremental increase in the right of government to become tyrannical. The obvious observation being that safety doesn't then translate into real safety. It's a laughable assertion by the liberal community.

 

Are there any laws that cannot be broken? By your logic murder should be legal since people will do it anyway.

 

SAFER...... you make it sound like people are currently being murdered in high numbers with Assault Weapons. Do you know the number?

 

This is a calculation based on an assumption that this would get to the court prior to another SCOTUS appointment being seated. Once Gosach is seated, this is a moot point.

 

The government can always become tyrannical and your "individual rights" only exist to the extent that the government allows them. You will never win against the government. You can replace one with another but you are always a subject.

- - - Updated - - -

I consider all firearms assault weapons so it is just a matter of expanding its definition to "all of them".