Second Amendment does not cover 'weapons of war,' US appeals court finds

[Little-Acorn]

I must have missed that language in the 2nd amendment, that mentions either self defense or "weapons of war".

This of course completely contradicts the clear and explicit finding by the Supreme Court in US v. Miller, that the 2nd amendment DOES cover "weapons of war" and similar guns... and nothing else. US v. Miller was about whether Jack Miller's sawed-off shotgun was protected by the 2nd amendment. The Court stated that (a) Miller's shotgun was not similar to standard weapons used by the armed forces, and (b) therefore it was NOT protected by the 2nd.

The fact that both of these statements were completely untrue, didn't bother the Supremes.

Now we have a ruling from the 2nd CCA saying that since the guy's AR-15 WAS similar to weapons used by the armed services, therefore it was not protected by the 2nd.

When liberals run the government, it's truly amazing how screwed up and contradictory their "rulings" can become.

------------------------------------------------------------

Second Amendment does not cover 'weapons of war,' US appeals court finds

Second Amendment does not cover 'weapons of war,' US appeals court finds
February 22, 2017

"Assault weapons" are not covered by the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court has found. On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 10-4 to uphold a Maryland law, which bans 45 kinds of guns and places a 10-round limit on gun magazines.

The law – implemented after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that killed 20 students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn. – is intended to protect against gun violence. For Judge Robert King and the majority in this ruling, certain kinds of rifles are “weapons of war,” meaning they are not covered under the Second Amendment for the purpose of self-defense.

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

What part of "A well regulated militia" did those stupid fuckers not understand?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Get Gorsuch confirmed now!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Seems that the United States government needs to follow their own ruling and have all law enforcement and other agencies turn firearms held by those agencies that fit their ruling over to the military.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Pogo]

That's interesting since ALL firearms are by definition 'weapons of war'.

 

[Timmy]

Does that mean a surface to air missle is "arms" ?

Just wondering where you guys draw the line .

 

[Damaged Eagle]

That's interesting since ALL firearms are by definition 'weapons of war'.

Then it'll be interesting when all the LEO' are running around with nightsticks and whistles.

At least we won't hear the progressives bitching about people being shot by law enforcement officials right?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I must have missed that language in the 2nd amendment, that mentions either self defense or "weapons of war".

This of course completely contradicts the clear and explicit finding by the Supreme Court in US v. Miller, that the 2nd amendment DOES cover "weapons of war" and similar guns... and nothing else. US v. Miller was about whether Jack Miller's sawed-off shotgun was protected by the 2nd amendment. The Court stated that (a) Miller's shotgun was not similar to standard weapons used by the armed forces, and (b) therefore it was NOT protected by the 2nd.

The fact that both of these statements were completely untrue, didn't bother the Supremes.

Now we have a ruling from the 2nd CCA saying that since the guy's AR-15 WAS similar to weapons used by the armed services, therefore it was not protected by the 2nd.

When liberals run the government, it's truly amazing how screwed up and contradictory their "rulings" can become.

------------------------------------------------------------

Second Amendment does not cover 'weapons of war,' US appeals court finds

Second Amendment does not cover 'weapons of war,' US appeals court finds
February 22, 2017

"Assault weapons" are not covered by the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court has found. On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 10-4 to uphold a Maryland law, which bans 45 kinds of guns and places a 10-round limit on gun magazines.

The law – implemented after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that killed 20 students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn. – is intended to protect against gun violence. For Judge Robert King and the majority in this ruling, certain kinds of rifles are “weapons of war,” meaning they are not covered under the Second Amendment for the purpose of self-defense.

May end up before SCOTUS, since the Left to this date has never defined how an "assault" weapon differs from a "non-assault" weapon.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I must have missed that language in the 2nd amendment, that mentions either self defense or "weapons of war".

This of course completely contradicts the clear and explicit finding by the Supreme Court in US v. Miller, that the 2nd amendment DOES cover "weapons of war" and similar guns... and nothing else. US v. Miller was about whether Jack Miller's sawed-off shotgun was protected by the 2nd amendment. The Court stated that (a) Miller's shotgun was not similar to standard weapons used by the armed forces, and (b) therefore it was NOT protected by the 2nd.

The fact that both of these statements were completely untrue, didn't bother the Supremes.

Now we have a ruling from the 2nd CCA saying that since the guy's AR-15 WAS similar to weapons used by the armed services, therefore it was not protected by the 2nd.

When liberals run the government, it's truly amazing how screwed up and contradictory their "rulings" can become.

------------------------------------------------------------

Second Amendment does not cover 'weapons of war,' US appeals court finds

Second Amendment does not cover 'weapons of war,' US appeals court finds
February 22, 2017

"Assault weapons" are not covered by the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court has found. On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 10-4 to uphold a Maryland law, which bans 45 kinds of guns and places a 10-round limit on gun magazines.

The law – implemented after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that killed 20 students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn. – is intended to protect against gun violence. For Judge Robert King and the majority in this ruling, certain kinds of rifles are “weapons of war,” meaning they are not covered under the Second Amendment for the purpose of self-defense.

Weapon of war:

 

[Weatherman2020]

Actually, now that Trumphitler is in power we should eliminate guns from the hands of the public

 

[Cellblock2429]

I must have missed that language in the 2nd amendment, that mentions either self defense or "weapons of war".

This of course completely contradicts the clear and explicit finding by the Supreme Court in US v. Miller, that the 2nd amendment DOES cover "weapons of war" and similar guns... and nothing else. US v. Miller was about whether Jack Miller's sawed-off shotgun was protected by the 2nd amendment. The Court stated that (a) Miller's shotgun was not similar to standard weapons used by the armed forces, and (b) therefore it was NOT protected by the 2nd.

The fact that both of these statements were completely untrue, didn't bother the Supremes.

Now we have a ruling from the 2nd CCA saying that since the guy's AR-15 WAS similar to weapons used by the armed services, therefore it was not protected by the 2nd.

When liberals run the government, it's truly amazing how screwed up and contradictory their "rulings" can become.

------------------------------------------------------------

Second Amendment does not cover 'weapons of war,' US appeals court finds

Second Amendment does not cover 'weapons of war,' US appeals court finds
February 22, 2017

"Assault weapons" are not covered by the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court has found. On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 10-4 to uphold a Maryland law, which bans 45 kinds of guns and places a 10-round limit on gun magazines.

The law – implemented after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that killed 20 students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn. – is intended to protect against gun violence. For Judge Robert King and the majority in this ruling, certain kinds of rifles are “weapons of war,” meaning they are not covered under the Second Amendment for the purpose of self-defense.

/---- Funny thing Cupcake, neither the gubmint nor the arms industry has any classifications called an assault weapon --the so called Judges wasted their time.

 

[Timmy]

Still wondering where y'all draw your lines.

A bazzoka ? Is that arms covered under the 2nd ? Grenades? Small missles ? !

 

[Blackrook]

There is no reason to trust a government that does not trust the people.

 

[rich stacy]

I must have missed that language in the 2nd amendment, that mentions either self defense or "weapons of war".

This of course completely contradicts the clear and explicit finding by the Supreme Court in US v. Miller, that the 2nd amendment DOES cover "weapons of war" and similar guns... and nothing else. US v. Miller was about whether Jack Miller's sawed-off shotgun was protected by the 2nd amendment. The Court stated that (a) Miller's shotgun was not similar to standard weapons used by the armed forces, and (b) therefore it was NOT protected by the 2nd.

Second Amendment does not cover 'weapons of war,' US appeals court finds
February 22, 2017

"Assault weapons" are not covered by the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court has found. On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 10-4 to uphold a Maryland law, which bans 45 kinds of guns and places a 10-round limit on gun magazines.

For Judge Robert King and the majority in this ruling, certain kinds of rifles are “weapons of war,” meaning they are not covered under the Second Amendment for the purpose of self-defense.

Heller V DC USSC, Scalia writing for the majority said the 2nd amendment right was an individual right, and granted a right to self defense. He also upheld the current major federal gun laws. National firearms act 1934, and the gun control act 1968.

By applying the 2nd to the individual, and rejecting the militia view, weapons of war, which would have been fine for the well regulated militia, aren't protected for the individual.

 

[rich stacy]

What part of "A well regulated militia" did those stupid fuckers not understand?

That view was rejected in Heller v DC. In favor of an individual right to self defense.

That's what has people upset about US v Miller's no longer giving the militia, aka all able bodied citizens, the right to military weapons.

 

[Doc1]

They'll have to pry my Stingers from my cold, dead fingers.