Little-Acorn
Gold Member
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.
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.
Last edited: