Federal Judge writes new law saying assault rifles not covered by 2nd amendment

[ShootSpeeders]

The constitution says only congress can write laws but judges write laws all the time and call it an "interpretation"

Federal court: Assault rifles not protected by Second Amendment

feb 22 2017 A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that assault rifles and other so-called “weapons of war” are not protected under the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, which was passed in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. It cited a 2008 Supreme Court case, Heller v. District of Columbia, which said that weapons “most useful in military service” are not covered by the Constitution.

“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,” Judge Robert King wrote for the 10-4 decision.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

When the guns are gone - everything is gone.

 

[jillian]

The constitution says only congress can write laws but judges write laws all the time and call it an "interpretation"

Federal court: Assault rifles not protected by Second Amendment

feb 22 2017 A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that assault rifles and other so-called “weapons of war” are not protected under the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, which was passed in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. It cited a 2008 Supreme Court case, Heller v. District of Columbia, which said that weapons “most useful in military service” are not covered by the Constitution.

“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,” Judge Robert King wrote for the 10-4 decision.

he did not "write a new law" idiota... the 2nd amendment is pretty clear that it applies to a "well regulated militia" and even if you morons want to ignore that, Heller makes clear that reasonable regulation is acceptable.

but thanks for the umpteenth whining lunatic thread from paid NRA shills

 

[jillian]

When the guns are gone - everything is gone.

only to brain dead loons who think a gun replaces the genitalia that they don't have

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

This will be President Trump's greatest contribution to America.

I hope 3-4 left wing Justices get replaced in the next 4 years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, justices don't write laws; only idiotas think justices write laws.

Two, no citizen needs a weapon of war. However, if the idiotas want a literal reading of the Constitution, then they can have single shot muskets and pistols.

 

[MindWars]

This will be President Trump's greatest contribution to America.

I hope 3-4 left wing Justices get replaced in the next 4 years.

I know Trump believes in the 2nd amendment very strongly..

 

[Auld Phart]

The constitution says only congress can write laws but judges write laws all the time and call it an "interpretation"

Federal court: Assault rifles not protected by Second Amendment

feb 22 2017 A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that assault rifles and other so-called “weapons of war” are not protected under the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, which was passed in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. It cited a 2008 Supreme Court case, Heller v. District of Columbia, which said that weapons “most useful in military service” are not covered by the Constitution.

“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,” Judge Robert King wrote for the 10-4 decision.

he did not "write a new law" idiota... the 2nd amendment is pretty clear that it applies to a "well regulated militia" and even if you morons want to ignore that, Heller makes clear that reasonable regulation is acceptable.

but thanks for the umpteenth whining lunatic thread from paid NRA shills

the 2nd amendment is pretty clear that it applies to a "well regulated militia"

It's even clearer that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I know Trump believes in the 2nd amendment very strongly..

His sons were in Michigan just before the election. I was REALLY impressed with them on the issue. They seemed sincere, not pandering to the base. I think their father shares their views on the issue. He is infinitely better than Hillary on all issues.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

One, justices don't write laws; only idiotas think justices write laws.

Roberts, you idiot, actually REWROTE the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, justices don't write laws; only idiotas think justices write laws.

Roberts, you idiot, actually REWROTE the law.

Issue that man a musket!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

One, justices don't write laws; only idiotas think justices write laws..

You're a yella yankee liah. Judges write laws all the time. People have been complaining about it for 200 years. THINK

 

[guno]

 

[TomParks]

This one issue cost Hillary the election.....when rural America votes liberals lose

 

[MindWars]

That way you can tell everyone you are not an armed _ussy.

 

[MindWars]

 

[Anon E Mouse]

One can always tell a leftist when the insults start. One doesn't have to be part of a militia to have the right to bear arms. The militia part is a statement of the importance of the right to keep and bear arms, not a restriction on it. The Bill of Rights recognizes human rights, it does not restrict us. The Constitution restricts the government so that we will be free. To suggest one must be a part of a group (such as a militia) to have a right turns it from an individual right (as are the rights to property, vote, speak freely, worship freely, have a trial by jury, etc.) to some weird concept of a collective right. Would you only like the right to trial by jury if you were part of a gang but not if you were accused of committing a crime by yourself? Would you only like to have the right to free speech if you were part of Congress or working for the New York Times?

Consider the following: A well informed Congress, being necessary to the wise operation of government, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.

There is nothing in that sentence which requires a person to be in Congress to have the right to own and read. Since the grammar is the same as the 2nd Amendment.....

Hate to break it to you, but the Constitution and the courts are not on your side. 30 years ago it was difficult to impossible for people to carry guns in most states. Now it is legal in all 50 states, with 42 of those either requiring no permits or granting permits to anyone who has no criminal record.

Finally, it does mean that people can own weapons of war. The generation of the founding fathers owned weapons of war at that time. The wealthier among them even owned cannon. The US Army was greatly downsized after WW2 and the federal government sold weapons of war to civilians by the millions, most of which are still in private hands. The vast majority of American gun owners go through their entire lives without harming a soul unless someone happens to be attacking their family.

My home state (California) has recently turned a bunch of very violent people loose because then Attorney General Kamala Harris misrepresented to people what proposition 47 is (Why do leftists have to lie so much?). It has resulted in a large spike in property and violent crime. Is their answer to strengthen the sentencing laws again, putting the violent people back in prison, so that we can go about our lives in safety? Nope. They have passed several gun control laws among the thousands which already exist that the criminals don't pay any attention to in the first place. Someone who commits felony robbery or murder does not care a bit about a gun law. All this does is make it harder for the people who have never been a problem to own and carry their weapons legally. Self defense is a human right, a subset of self preservation, yet through much of California the sheriff's will not grant concealed carry permits. Open carry was outlawed in 2011 so the only way to have a chance to exercise one's right to bear arms is by asking the sheriff for permission. This effectively turns a right into a privilege. Would you like to have to ask permission of someone to exercise your right to free speech or to own property? I doubt it. It is a cornerstone of American thought and law that we don't treat the innocent as the guilty, yet we do just that with our gun laws. Should you lose your license to drive because your neighbor drives while drunk? Or be sent to prison because your neighbor is a burglar? Then why should I not have the right to own and carry a gun because other people are irresponsible?

Answer me this. If the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean that people have the right to bear arms why was private firearm ownership not regulated in the least until the 20th century? There wasn't a single federal gun law until the 1930s, and very few state and local ones before that.

You are trying to twist our very history, our Constitution, the Bill of Rights. You are outright lying. People like you are dangerous. You are the types to say war is peace, freedom is slavery and 2 + 2 = 5. Truth is important, and when lies are believed to be the truth destructive things happen.

We were able to establish this nation because we had nearly everyone owning firearms. It is an important right even now.

The
constitution says only congress can write laws but judges write laws all the time and call it an "interpretation"

Federal court: Assault rifles not protected by Second Amendment

feb 22 2017 A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that assault rifles and other so-called “weapons of war” are not protected under the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, which was passed in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. It cited a 2008 Supreme Court case, Heller v. District of Columbia, which said that weapons “most useful in military service” are not covered by the Constitution.

“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,” Judge Robert King wrote for the 10-4 decision.

he did not "write a new law" idiota... the 2nd amendment is pretty clear that it applies to a "well regulated militia" and even if you morons want to ignore that, Heller makes clear that reasonable regulation is acceptable.

but thanks for the umpteenth whining lunatic thread from paid NRA shills

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, justices don't write laws; only idiotas think justices write laws..

You're a yella yankee liah. Judges write laws all the time. People have been complaining about it for 200 years. THINK

That is a silly statement. The losers have been complaining for a long time. When the canard "they are coming to take our weapons," you know your side is losing the argument again. Heller was opined in 2009, so we will see what SCOTUS says. It will not likely come down on the side you get carry "weapons of war."

Anyone who thinks only the left name calls is someone not taken seriously.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

So explain why gun free zones like chicago have so many shootings. THINK, america-hater.