4th Circuit weighs in on MD "Assault" weapon bans

[Gilligan]

This is interesting. Note also the moron judges ( and Frosh himself) quoted in the article that still have no clue what a weak sister rifle the typical AR-15 is....compared to so very, very many rifles that were not banned.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-decision-casts-doubt-on-marylands-assault-weapons-ban/2016/02/04/8a234240-cb59-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html

 

[glhs837]

This is interesting. Note also the moron judges ( and Frosh himself) quoted in the article that still have no clue what a weak sister rifle the typical AR-15 is....compared to so very, very many rifles that were not banned.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-decision-casts-doubt-on-marylands-assault-weapons-ban/2016/02/04/8a234240-cb59-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html

whaa, how can you argue with logic like this.....

"Judge Robert B. King wrote: 'Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s [law] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war' and as such, he said, not constitutionally protected."

So, not only does this Judge not have a freakin clue as to the actual lethality of the banned weapons, he seems to have made up a special clause of the Second Amendment, that "exceptionally lethal" clause. How does a person so ignorant get to decide issues which he cannot even be bothered to research? I didn't miss the reporters "clips" wording either.

 

[Gilligan]

Let's take the moron's nonsense apart in steps.

"Judge Robert B. King wrote: 'Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s [law] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war' and as such, he said, not constitutionally protected."

1. The 5.56/.223 AR-15 and clones are some of the weakest rifles ever produced. They are exceptionally non-lethal. That is why many states ban them for hunting deer and other game..too weak.
2. The AR-15 is not, to my knowledge, used/deployed/issued by ANY military forces anywhere in the world.

3. The Second Ammendment was intended to protect the rights of citizens to own any/all of firearms available at the time...certainly and specifically including the then-most-state-of-the-art infantry firearms. It was their use as "Weapons of war" that the 2A was most focused on protecting.


4. There are literally thousands of long guns that are orders of magnitude more powerful potentially lethal than those "evil black rifles" banned by MD.

It has become almost a sick joke how those that want so desperately to ban firearms always know so incredibly little about them

 

[Tilted]

A big decision.

I have my doubts whether it would be affirmed on review by this Fourth Circuit. We had drawn a reasonably favorable panel for this decision.

The question is, will the state seek an en banc review of this decision or let the lower court reconsider it (applying strict scrutiny to the assault weapon and magazine bans) first? If Mr. O'Malley was still governor, I have little doubt that the state would go for an en banc review first. With Mr. Hogan in office, will he seize on this opportunity and push to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court? That would force the high Court to either let the 4th Circuit panel's decision stand and, effectively, become Circuit precedent or take up the general 2nd Amendment issue in a meaningful way itself again. The latter is something which it has repeatedly decided not to do even though it's had some good opportunities in the last few years.

 

[TheLibertonian]

You do realize that the argument that the gun is "weaker" doesn't count for much when it can still penetrate a humans body right? A .22LR is perfectly safe to shoot someone in the head with amirite.

I agree that the ban is stupid, but that counter-argument is also based on silliness.

 

[Saiga]

A big decision.

I have my doubts whether it would be affirmed on review by this Fourth Circuit. We had drawn a reasonably favorable panel for this decision.

The question is, will the state seek an en banc review of this decision or let the lower court reconsider it (applying strict scrutiny to the assault weapon and magazine bans) first? If Mr. O'Malley was still governor, I have little doubt that the state would go for an en banc review first. With Mr. Hogan in office, will he seize on this opportunity and push to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court? That would force the high Court to either let the 4th Circuit panel's decision stand and, effectively, become Circuit precedent or take up the general 2nd Amendment issue in a meaningful way itself again. The latter is something which it has repeatedly decided not to do even though it's had some good opportunities in the last few years.

I may be wrong but I don't think it's up to Hogan to decide. The decision is in the AG which is Frosh who is just another Bloomburg puppet.

 

[Larry Gude]

whaa, how can you argue with logic like this.....

"Judge Robert B. King wrote: 'Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s [law] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war' and as such, he said, not constitutionally protected."

So, not only does this Judge not have a freakin clue as to the actual lethality of the banned weapons, he seems to have made up a special clause of the Second Amendment, that "exceptionally lethal" clause. How does a person so ignorant get to decide issues which he cannot even be bothered to research? I didn't miss the reporters "clips" wording either.

It was quite the learning experience sitting through some of the SB 281 stuff.

It would be fun if someone had the time and money to cobble together a case illustrating how discriminatory the dislike of some AR's is and how shallow that discrimination is and how it amounts to, point after point, discrimination based on color and other appearance characteristics. Not kidding, at core, the assault on some AR's is text book everything we're told is wrong in terms of making decisions.

 

[glhs837]

You do realize that the argument that the gun is "weaker" doesn't count for much when it can still penetrate a humans body right? A .22LR is perfectly safe to shoot someone in the head with amirite.

I agree that the ban is stupid, but that counter-argument is also based on silliness.

You do realize pointing out that lawmakers arguing that the power of the weapons was a reason to ban them when in fact they are not powerful was the point. Not that they should not be banned because they were weak. Like screaming to ban those damn gas guzzling Prii. Or demanding we do something to stop the steroid abuse endemic amongst math clubs nationwide.

 

[TheLibertonian]

You do realize pointing out that lawmakers arguing that the power of the weapons was a reason to ban them when in fact they are not powerful was the point. Not that they should not be banned because they were weak. Like screaming to ban those damn gas guzzling Prii. Or demanding we do something to stop the steroid abuse endemic amongst math clubs nationwide.

But they are powerful. Even the weakest handgun...ok maybe not an original derringer, is capable of killing or crippling a human being with very little "relative" effort.

 

[glhs837]

Yep, sure are. Which is why the hue and cry to ban the Scary Black Guns is stupid and meant to lull the sheep into thinking "WE ARE DOING SOMETHING". That's the public face, while the private face of it is that once they get that camels nose under the tent, by getting people okay with banning just the Scary Black Guns, then it's time to find a new boogeyman, say handguns. Then other guns.

 

[TheLibertonian]

Yep, sure are. Which is why the hue and cry to ban the Scary Black Guns is stupid and meant to lull the sheep into thinking "WE ARE DOING SOMETHING". That's the public face, while the private face of it is that once they get that camels nose under the tent, by getting people okay with banning just the Scary Black Guns, then it's time to find a new boogeyman, say handguns. Then other guns.

Which was rather what I said in my original post.

 

[Gilligan]

You do realize that the argument that the gun is "weaker" doesn't count for much when it can still penetrate a humans body right? .

You completely missed the point. The point is simple: Anti-2A activists and their elected lackeys routinely employ several outright lies in support of their mission:

1. That AR-15s are unusually lethal..that they are unusually and unnecessarily "high powered". They are nothing of the sort. A .30-06 is "high powered". No .30-06s were banned.

 

[Gilligan]

But they are powerful. .

Look..another lefty that knows nothing about the subject. I rest my case.

 

[TheLibertonian]

Look..another lefty that knows nothing about the subject. I rest my case.

Says the man missing the point.

The point is the leftist arguement is stupid: So is the counter arguement being presented here.

Saying a firearm is 'not powerful' is a lie. All modern fire arms are more then capable of killing and crippling with very little effort. Saying a firearm is 'not powerful in comparison to another firearm' is true but absolutely useless to point out.

How about, the government doesn't have the right to strip you of property rights for very little reason, and less then .0001% of gun owners commit crimes with their weapons per year. Attempting to punish 99.9999% of the gun owners in the U.S. for the actions of less then 1% is draconic and unamerican and anti-western.

 

[Gilligan]

Says the man missing the point.

The point is the leftist arguement is stupid: So is the counter arguement being presented here.

Gawd you are obtuse. Let me simplify further: Claims and assertions used to support the ban ARE OUTRIGHT LIES AND FABRICATIONS. Totally..utterly..false.

There...see now? Or are you, like a Hillary supporter, perfectly OK with lying as a means to an end?

 

[tommyjo]

Let's take the moron's nonsense apart in steps.


3. The Second Ammendment was intended to protect the rights of citizens to own any/all of firearms available at the time...certainly and specifically including the then-most-state-of-the-art infantry firearms. It was their use as "Weapons of war" that the 2A was most focused on protecting.

You rail in following posts against the lefties who lie and make up stuff...soooo exactly what the hell are you doing with this idiotic comment? CLEARLY you are making sh!t up.

Please state some ruling from a US court, some commentary from any of the drafters of the Constitution/Bill of Rights who support your "weapons of war" position.

Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints -

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

 

[PeoplesElbow]

You completely missed the point. The point is simple: Anti-2A activists and their elected lackeys routinely employ several outright lies in support of their mission:

1. That AR-15s are unusually lethal..that they are unusually and unnecessarily "high powered". They are nothing of the sort. A .30-06 is "high powered". No .30-06s were banned.

The next argument will be "the 30-06 is way more powerful than the AR-15 and needs to be banned too", mark my words.

 

[Dukesdad]

But they are powerful. Even the weakest handgun...ok maybe not an original derringer, is capable of killing or crippling a human being with very little "relative" effort.

Ask Abe about that.

 

[Merlin99]

You rail in following posts against the lefties who lie and make up stuff...soooo exactly what the hell are you doing with this idiotic comment? CLEARLY you are making sh!t up.

Please state some ruling from a US court, some commentary from any of the drafters of the Constitution/Bill of Rights who support your "weapons of war" position.



http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

It's right in your attachment,

The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause....

the militia were the ones who fought the wars, therefore they required the "weapons of war".

 

[Tilted]

I may be wrong but I don't think it's up to Hogan to decide. The decision is in the AG which is Frosh who is just another Bloomburg puppet.

I'm not sure how that would work, that's why I had changed my wording to suggest that Mr. Hogan might push to appeal the case to the Supreme Court next (rather than to suggest that he could just decide himself to do that).

He is a named defendant in the suit, though only in his official capacity. And reading relevant provisions of the state constitution, I'm not sure how much say he has in this regard - in this specific context, and even aside from being a named defendant himself. I think the constitution could be interpreted different ways. I suspect there's case law that might answer the question, but I haven't had time to research it. It's also possible that this could itself make for of an interesting, as yet unresolved, legal question.