People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules

People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules

Well the article says a divided decision but many are. Since the alleged and politically defined 'assault weapon' are the most popular rifles ever sold and the AR-15 is the most popular of all of them, this is a good decision for Maryland law abiding citizens.

The opposing view.

Can you decipher that?

If this ever gets to the Supreme court this will be an important previous court ruling.

 

Ayuh,.... Sooner the Better,.....

It'll open the door to repealin' King Cuomo's safe act,.....

 

Hearth and Home, hummph.

One must never leave home and expect to have a right defend oneself. Even the early American Colonists were known to remove their rifles hanging about the hearth and carry them around outside.

 

Yes:
i) A court doctrine has arisen in cases that treats enumerated rights differently that unenumerated rights even though the clear intent of the framers was that they be treated equally.

ii) Enumerated rights infringements except for those in the 2nd amendment have always been subjected to strict rather than intermediate scrutiny.

iii) Nearly any legislative act can pass intermediate scrutiny. Nearly no legislative act can pass strict scrutiny.

iv) This ruling strikes a blow against disparate protection of our civil rights and treats our 2nd amendment rights equally with our other enumerated civil rights.

 

Perhaps now , BUT when Obama/HilLIAR y re-write the Constitution , not so much .

 

The constitutional enumerated rights are not civil rights but natural rights. Natural Rights are a part of Natural Law and; therefore, come from our Creator but civil rights are a part of human law and are created by man; thus, they are not and can never be equivalent. So the ruling does nothing for or against civil rights.

 

Fair point. But that is a distinction that only has currency with folks that believe our fundamental rights do not come from human sources. A person who believes that our rights come from human sources does not differentiate between unalienable and civil rights. To them all rights are civil, meaning they are granted by the State.

In this case, this ruling works for both sets of folks.

 

Such an opinion means there are no such thing as rights that can be protected. Philosophically the framers knew better than to claim all rights are created by man or men as throughout history,that never works out very well for the individual.

 

Good for them.

 

We aren't teaching that in our schools, so only a very small and shrinking segment of our population even understands these concepts that undergird our founding. What were we thinking when we turned over the education of our children to the Left Wing for the last two generations?

We patted ourselves on the back for our two Reagan landslides and sent our children off to leftwing concentration camps for daily indoctrination. Now they are following Old Bernie the Socialist.

Now what?

 

No kidding.

Memo to idiots cheering Bernie and Hillary

 

It will be interesting to see how this matter plays out. What will the court do, now that they have been ordered to apply strict scrutiny rather than intermediate scrutiny by a court that is of superior rank to them? If they attempt to claim the law is constitutional even under strict scrutiny, how will they claim that the law is the most narrowly tailored, and least restrictive method possible of carrying out a compelling government interest, when it is so far reaching, and negatively affects so many?

What sort of legal gymnastics would the court be required to engage in, to rule that the law in question can pass the muster of strict scrutiny?

 

Like the town up in Mass that is to require an essay to prove need for a CCW, many of these laws are passed with full knowledge that they are unconstitutional, but it takes time for that ruling, after which they will have another delaying unconstitutional law in place. The objective is to keep putting up barriers as long as possible. It's been SOP in other places like Chicago, DC, California, most recently in Georgia with their bill for a so called assault weapon banban, and several others. People that knowing subvert the Constitution should be held accountable...

 

Some of us are lucky to be in States with a clear protection of arms. You can get a lifetime carry permit here. Because of the State Constitution the courts have decided that a carry permit cannot be denied for self protection (because of the Constitution) while they also found that a carry license is intended to maximize control over criminal and careless uses of certain types of firearms while at the same time making them available to persons when needed for protection. This State is a Shall Issue State so it is easy to get a license if you have no criminal record or are not considered mentally unstable or an habitual drunk.

 

Is this an assault weapon?



Hint... It is legal in all 50 states. Why?

 

Because it's not an assault weapon.

 

Every time someone says "assault weapon", I think of this......

 

Exactly. As soon as one stupid firearm restriction is struck down by a court, the *******s pass another one.

 

It is a ar like pump action.223/55.56 from Troy, not only not a select fire which is originally what was one of the criteria for the label when the Sturmgewehr, (meaning assault rifle) was introduced by the Germans in WWII, it is also not a semiautomatic.

My second rifle, one I got when I was about 13 was a Remington Model 12 pump action.22, similar to one Annie Oakley used. I could shoot it as quickly as anyone could with a semiautomatic. I had the occasion to test shoot the Troy when a rep came to town and while not as quick as he was, it was apparent that approaching semiautomatic aimed fire speed was doable.

Incidentally, when I hear from the anti-gun advocates that civilians shouldn't have military assault rifles is the dishonesty associated with that discussion. The AR 15 for instance is not a military rifle, it doesn't have select fire and is always referred to as a civilian version of the basic AR platform. As with the Troy above I have yet to see any definitive definition of what constitutes an assault rifle other that cosmetic assessories....and that they refer to guns that somehow look scary.

 

Yeah as far as I know no military in the world uses a semi-automatic firearm as a battle rifle.

I've seen people on here saying that pistol grips, flash hiders, and 30 round mags make it military equipment, which is hilarious.

 

There have been a lot of discussions on the revolution caused by the introduction of the Sturmgewehr. It was the original gun labeled assault rifle. It had 30 round mags, selective fire, key to its design was that it fired an intermediate round, the 7.92×33mm. The AK47 design was influenced by this design as were many other designs. But, in terms of the power of the 7.92 round it was eclipsed by 30.06, 303, and 8mm rounds of military rifles at the time and still of many sporting and hunting rifles. All of the guns shooting those rounds were effective out to an beyond 1000 yards, unlike the AR 5.56 or AK 7.62x33 rounds which struggle beyond 500-600.

Gen George S. Patton one maintaibed that the M1 Garrand, firing the 30.06 was the single greatest military implement ever devised. In regard to the assault weapon discussion, a Garrand has none of the attributes often cited as characteristic of assault rifles, 30 Rd detachable magazines, hand grips, etc.. It is semiautomatic, but it's internal 8 round magazine is loaded using an 8 round stripper clip and of note, someone adept with the rifle can lay down a hell of a rain of fire, keeping it loaded nearly as quickly as any using a AR15 with detachable magazines. However, at close range the 30.06 is a far, far more devastating round. It can go through both sides of a car, through trees, through more than one set of body armour and other barriers easily stopping a 5.56 round. It can easily zip through two, three and perhaps more people. While the full size Garrand is a bit long a sad heavy at 10lbs, shorter tanker versions can be had. The potential damage these can do, despite the limitation of 8 rounds per load, would be devastating, but none of the so called bans of assault weapons would cover this weapon.

But, even if semiautomatic were banned, the British carried for 80 some years variations of the.303 Enfield bolt action rifle. While some did have detachable 10 round magazines, earlier versions had internal mags loaded with stripper clips. But here is the thing, the bold action was so smooth and quick with these rifles that Britain could shoot them as quickly as US soldiers with the Garrand. Just Google the 'mad minute' in context to the.303 Enfield.

I've owned both rifles. There is a reason they were as successful as they were.

All the discussion of the dangers of assault rifles is often based on Hollywood portrayals of fully automatic weapon, not reality and certainly not in context with the power, non scary looking guns might have.

 

These are examples of short barrel shotguns, one with a 8.5" barrel. They do not require ATF registration. Anyone care to guess why?

 

They're pistols. Although that 2nd one has another grip on it, so.... not sure on the 2nd one. Unless it doesn't count as a grip, but as the weapons pump action.

 

How dare you show assault shotguns here. Have you no shame and decency?

- - - Updated - - -

It's the stock that they worry about. Which is actually something to help you shoot it one handed. You put your arm in it and strap it on.

My mistake, you're right about the second grip. Unless its not considered one.

 

Relative to sort barrel shotguns requiring ATF registration are those that were long shotguns altered by having their stocks cut off and/or barrels reduced shorter than 18". These shotguns were manufactured as sort barrel shotguns and therefore are not require to have ATF registration. Law is different for short barrel rifles. You can buy these off the shelf and walk. It's a strange fact that some manufacturers are now taking advantage of.

They do by the way come with that certification and a letter from the ATF.