Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.

 

Heller forbids the outright banning of a class of weapons.

the Maryland AWB does not ban all semi-auto rifles, if it did it would be unConstitutional.

banning some semi-auto weapons due to their features and accessories, is Constitutional.

 

"banning some semi-auto weapons due to their features and accessories" while leaving rifles with the exact same functionality and lethality as legal is the epitome of stupidity.

This weapon is not an assault weapon:

• "Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially-similar model weapon;"

This weapon was used by a shooter in Norway to kill 69 people, but it's not dangerous.

http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/guns-that-are-not-assault-weapons.html

You realize this is the same Court that upheld the Maryland ban.

 

the courts may consider flash suppressors, noise suppresors, pistol grips, foldable stocks, to be accessories that turn a civilian weapon into a military weapon.

 

Then it's not about safety, is it?

 

Is this a military weapon:



It was type-standardized as the M40 sniper rifle for the Marine Corps. Does painting the stock of a Remington 700 camouflage make it a military weapon, because that's all that the USMC did.

 

this is over a year old-its an idiotic decision-the son of the Judge who wrote this I know well. Even he was shaking his head. WE speculated his father wanted Supreme Court to take this up

 

which shows how incredibly dishonest democrat federal judges can be

if cops are using real machine guns that makes them CIVILIAN weapons

 

Ill bet theres a money trail back to Ruger here.

They already tried to corner the semi-auto rifle market in 2012 with Feinstein.

 

Libertarian political philosophy, thank heavens, does not govern the federal judiciary: case law and the Constitution are the guides.

 

So the 4th circuit has explicitly ignored the ruling in Heller regarding weapons in common use.

If someone thinks a flash suppressor and a pistol grip means a rifle goes from "ok" to "deadly", they're a special kind of stupid.

 

Irrelevant. The united state supreme court has stated three times now, that the second amendment applies to all implements that amount to bearable arms, even those that did not exist at the time of the first congress. Anything that is in common use for legal purposes is subject to constitutional protections, and cannot be prohibited under any measure of scrutiny. The ruling by this lower court ignores this precedent.

 

The district of columbia attempted that argument in defense of their total prohibition on handguns, arguing that it was constitutional since rifles and shotguns were still allowed for ownership. The united state supreme court said that such is not good enough.

 

This is more than a year old, and previously well discussed.

The SCotUS held the 2nd protects the right to own and use all "bearable arms". The Circuit court ignored this.

 

TOG 6 misreads the SCOTUS reading. In the next year or two, it will rule on "weapons of war", what they are and if citizens can in everyday use own and bear them.

 

What are "weapons of war" and where does it say that citizens can't own them?

 

SCOTUS will have to decide that. Your opinion, and mine for that matter, does not count.

 

Said no one familiar with the relevant rulings of the court.

 

Should firearms that have never been used in war be defined as "weapons of war"? Are all firearm types that have been used in war considered to be "weapons of war"?

 

The anti-gun left has one argument: It looks like an M16.
That's it. Other than that, the AR - and all other 'assault weapons' - are functionally identical to every other semi-auto rifle.
Ban an entire class of firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes based on appearance?
Boy, I see the SCotUS upholding that.

 

Thank you, Rucker61, for inferring that SCOTUS will have to decide that.

 

The M16 is restricted for one reason, and one reason only. It isn't because it fires a .223 cartridge. It isn't because it uses a 30 round magazine. It isn't because it has a folding stock, pistol grip, flash hider or bayonet lug. It's because it's a machine gun under NFA 1934. I feel that any selective fire AR-15s can be restricted under NFA 1934.

The Mini-14 and the M1A, interestingly enough, are never on the ban list.

 

Writers imply, readers infer.

Do you have any opinion at all? If not, why are you here?

 

ANY ruling that follows such nonsense is NOT based in case law OR the Constitution.

This is why the courts have abdicated all credibility. They've become nothing but a rubberstamp machine defending governmental overreach and authoritarianism.

 

Your govt is totally beholding to the corporate state aristocracy, take it up with them.