So, anti gunners who say no one wants to take our guns...what about the 4th circuit gun ban?

[2aguy]

The anti gunners keep telling us that no one wants to take our guns away from us....and then the 4th Circuit court of appeals does just that with it's ruling on the new Massachuesetts law.....which completely ignored Heller and essentially can be used to take away just about every type of firearm we now have....

As I have said in the past...left wing judges do not follow Precedent......this was a favorite line from one of the anti gunners, that no one was going to take guns because it was already settled law....well.....it just became unsettled....and it ignored all of the legal Precedent that came before, even those set by the 4th Circuit...which also vacated an earlier ruling on the issue.....

 

[Sunni Man]

 

[MisterBeale]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

 

[Auld Phart]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The courts will parse that, wil, not you, with authoritative power.

 

[2aguy]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Moron......all categories of guns have been used in war.....

flintlock rifles....military weapon.

lever action rifle...military weapon.

bolt action rifle...military weapon.

pump action shot gun...military weapon.

6 shot revolver...military weapon.

Therefore all guns are "weapons of war" and are no longer protected by the 2nd Amendment...moron....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

If this is allowed to stand.....they will.....this is why it was so important to elect Trump....we at least have a chance of stopping this...

 

[tyroneweaver]

You have guns.

I couldn't hit a target even with a weapon of war.

There, fixed it.
"

 

[JakeStarkey]

ty, you can't hit the side of a barn firing from inside it.

2aguy, you have no power to say what is the law.

You don't get a 'weapon of war' as deigned by the 4th.

 

[Winston]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

 

[Auld Phart]

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service.

The most useful firearm I carried while in the service was a handgun.

 

[Winston]

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service.

The most useful firearm I carried while in the service was a handgun.

Most useful while you carried is not most useful in military service. First I can't imagine why that would be the case. Well any good reason. What, were you an MP? Second, I doubt that is the case for most soldiers. Hell, there were a good many WWII vets that would tell you their shovel was the most useful piece of equipment, does that mean a shovel is most useful in military service?

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Boy...you are the dumb one.....

The rifle is the primary weapon of self defense against an illegitmate government.....it is specifically covered by the 2nd Amendment asswipe.

The AR-15 has never been used in military service.....and that isn't the standard set even by Heller....the standard is "in common use" and since the AR-15 is the most popular and most commonly used rifle in this country...you are wrong, as is the 4th circuit that made up that term without regard to the Constitution or legal Precedent...

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Moron...they ignored Heller.......the ruling from the Court that is superior to their court....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


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

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

----------

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

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

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”


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

That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.


-------

As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

------------
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training
----
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

----


----------

B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the


---------

1. Post-ratification Commentary Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 33 Opinion of the Court the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.

--------




c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”


As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

----

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

---------

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

anything can be a weapon of war

people kill with their bare hands in war when need be so I guess you don;t have a right to your hands

 

[2aguy]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

That is exactly what the 2nd Amendment protects dipshit......you have an excuse....you are not a judge..you can be stupid about the law....the morons on the 4th....they are just left wing activists who wear robes...

 

[2aguy]

For the anti gunners.....the morons in other words....here is Ted Cruz on why the 4th's decision is stupid....

The Circuit Court of Appeals Got the Second Amendment Wrong, Sen. Cruz Explains Why

During a conversation with Mark Levin, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), pointed out the hypocrisy of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban, which keeps a list of “assault weapons” out of the hands of the law-abiding gun owners.

“The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has invented this new test for the Second Amendment. Here’s what their test said: the Second Amendment doesn’t protect a weapon if it would be useful in a military context.”

Ironic, right?

“This test isn’t just sort of questionable. It isn’t just a little bit out there. It is nuts!” Cruz exclaimed. “The Second Amendment was designed explicitly to protect weapons used in a military context.

Sen. Cruz went on to explain the how the Founding Fathers envisioned the Second Amendment and even applied the Court of Appeals’ logic to life back in 1789.

Watch the full tidbit below:

 

[Frankeneinstein]

post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense

That's where the problem begins then

One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Even if I could make the argument I wouldn't, I think the decision needs overhauling so no one has to make that argument.

 

[2aguy]

From Heller....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------