US Appeals court upholds Marylands unconstitutional ban on scary guns

[NYcarbineer]

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on assault rifles
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

---------
Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I assume, for the sake of consistency and honor, those same people also don't think the first applies to the internet and phones? You know, because they cant "extend it?"
Or maybe any religion developed after 1787, doesn't get the same rights as one developed pre-Constitution?
IDK maybe that's not what it means

lol, the Mormon polygamists don't get the same rights for their religion.

yeah, and muslims cant stone women for getting raped. You completely missed my point.

You're arguing that the 2nd Amendment strictly interpreted prohibits any restrictions on automatic weapons, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, bazookas, etc.

Indeed. With the first, liberty is the big thing. "your liberty ends at my nose" and all that. Having guns doesn't infringe on anyones liberty.
Granted, I don't understand why polygamists cant marry more than oen person.. Probably for tax reasons or something? Ugh, govt shouldn't be in marriage anyways..
In the second, the big thing is "shall not be infringed"

The first amendment says freedom of the press shall not be abridged, which is comparable to infringed,

but certainly it's not expected that the courts allow anything and everything to be published and distributed via the press.

 

[there4eyeM]

MADD got unconstitutional measures put into effect. When enough voices decide to interpret things their way, that's what happens.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Indeed. With the first, liberty is the big thing. "your liberty ends at my nose" and all that.

The interesting thing about that quote is the folks who use it. It pretends that they extend your "liberties" to the tip of their noses, but the truth is much different, for them our liberties end long before that...not taking exception to your post at all, just found it necessary to make that point.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on assault rifles
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

---------
Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I assume, for the sake of consistency and honor, those same people also don't think the first applies to the internet and phones? You know, because they cant "extend it?"
Or maybe any religion developed after 1787, doesn't get the same rights as one developed pre-Constitution?
IDK maybe that's not what it means

lol, the Mormon polygamists don't get the same rights for their religion.

yeah, and muslims cant stone women for getting raped. You completely missed my point.

You're arguing that the 2nd Amendment strictly interpreted prohibits any restrictions on automatic weapons, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, bazookas, etc.

Indeed. With the first, liberty is the big thing. "your liberty ends at my nose" and all that. Having guns doesn't infringe on anyones liberty.
Granted, I don't understand why polygamists cant marry more than oen person.. Probably for tax reasons or something? Ugh, govt shouldn't be in marriage anyways..
In the second, the big thing is "shall not be infringed"

The first amendment says freedom of the press shall not be abridged, which is comparable to infringed,

but certainly it's not expected that the courts allow anything and everything to be published and distributed via the press.

That's where it gets tricky, the courts have since the 60's been the legal lackies for the press, the press really decides what can and cannot be distributed through them and then the courts act accordingly in/on their behalf...that's judicial activism

 

[TNHarley]

Indeed. With the first, liberty is the big thing. "your liberty ends at my nose" and all that.

The interesting thing about that quote is the folks who use it. It pretends that they extend your "liberties" to the tip of their noses, but the truth is much different, for them our liberties end long before that...not taking exception to your post at all, just found it necessary to make that point.

absolutely. For some it would be "your liberty ends at my nose. My liberty ends wherever in the fuck I say it does."

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You know what I meant, o clever one.
Tyranny has NOT been avoided because of guns in every closet. It has been avoided because of checks and balances and the people's right to a representative government.

Yes it has!

*****SMILE*****

 

[OldLady]

Very true. The silver lining to this oppression is that once at the SCOTUS, it has the potential to bring down the national firearms act and all its fascist derivatives....

yes, hopefully they might start actually hearing this shit. There are 7 or 8 states that have similar infringements of liberty in place. Hopefully they all cease to exist.

Sooner or later they will get down to striking down the Sullivan Act in NYC, the one that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 or so in fees just to get a revolver to keep in my apartment.

I hope so! They only do that shit to curb purchase. Fucking fascists.

Yeah, the fucking fascists. Might have something to do with NYC's lower gun murder rate these days, too.

That has nothing to do with rifles with magazines now does it? Since they aren't used for much crime at all....or standard size magazines for that matter. So why did they allow a ban on items that are not a problem...?

I was talking to Marty, I believe, and referring to why gun crime in NYC-- where one works long and hard to get a gun--might be lower. Less guns = less gun crimes in that city? There could be a relationship there. I'm sure you will disagree, though.

 

[martybegan]

yes, hopefully they might start actually hearing this shit. There are 7 or 8 states that have similar infringements of liberty in place. Hopefully they all cease to exist.

Sooner or later they will get down to striking down the Sullivan Act in NYC, the one that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 or so in fees just to get a revolver to keep in my apartment.

I hope so! They only do that shit to curb purchase. Fucking fascists.

Yeah, the fucking fascists. Might have something to do with NYC's lower gun murder rate these days, too.

That has nothing to do with rifles with magazines now does it? Since they aren't used for much crime at all....or standard size magazines for that matter. So why did they allow a ban on items that are not a problem...?

I was talking to Marty, I believe, and referring to why gun crime in NYC-- where one works long and hard to get a gun--might be lower. Less guns = less gun crimes in that city? There could be a relationship there. I'm sure you will disagree, though.

Again, back in the 70's and 80's the same law was on the books and crime was rampant.

How does making it impossible for a law abiding citizen such as myself to get a gun legally prevent someone from getting one illegally?

 

[percysunshine]

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on assault rifles
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

---------
Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I assume, for the sake of consistency and honor, those same people also don't think the first applies to the internet and phones? You know, because they cant "extend it?"
Or maybe any religion developed after 1787, doesn't get the same rights as one developed pre-Constitution?
IDK maybe that's not what it means

lol, the Mormon polygamists don't get the same rights for their religion.

yeah, and muslims cant stone women for getting raped. You completely missed my point.

You're arguing that the 2nd Amendment strictly interpreted prohibits any restrictions on automatic weapons, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, bazookas, etc.

Indeed. With the first, liberty is the big thing. "your liberty ends at my nose" and all that. Having guns doesn't infringe on anyones liberty.
Granted, I don't understand why polygamists cant marry more than oen person.. Probably for tax reasons or something? Ugh, govt shouldn't be in marriage anyways..
In the second, the big thing is "shall not be infringed"

The first amendment says freedom of the press shall not be abridged, which is comparable to infringed,

but certainly it's not expected that the courts allow anything and everything to be published and distributed via the press.

.
The New York Times is a weapon of propaganda wars. This judgement indicates they should be banned.

...but in Texas, you can conceal carry the NYTimes.

 

[80zephyr]

There are restrictions on all rights, including the 2nd and the 1st. When we've got officially declared war on the streets of Maryland, I'd be willing to rethink this ruling.

by then it will be too late

the 2nd amendment was put into place so that citizens could check the power of the federal government; this ruling flies in the face of that intent

If you think you're going to stand up to the power of the federal government with an assault rifle (I'm guessing they mean AR-15 types? semi's actually?), I pity you.

It amazes me that people who envision a rebellion always figure the rebels would be standing in the streets so they could be mowed down. What happens if rebels fight a Guerrilla war in cities and suburbs? Will the government use there bombs and missiles against a city where loyal US citizens reside? So, yeah, a war against a government can be fought successfully, UNLESS the government is willing to kill loyal citizens to take out the rebels.

Mark

 

[Frankeneinstein]

yes, hopefully they might start actually hearing this shit. There are 7 or 8 states that have similar infringements of liberty in place. Hopefully they all cease to exist.

Sooner or later they will get down to striking down the Sullivan Act in NYC, the one that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 or so in fees just to get a revolver to keep in my apartment.

I hope so! They only do that shit to curb purchase. Fucking fascists.

Yeah, the fucking fascists. Might have something to do with NYC's lower gun murder rate these days, too.

That has nothing to do with rifles with magazines now does it? Since they aren't used for much crime at all....or standard size magazines for that matter. So why did they allow a ban on items that are not a problem...?

I was talking to Marty, I believe, and referring to why gun crime in NYC-- where one works long and hard to get a gun--might be lower. Less guns = less gun crimes in that city? There could be a relationship there. I'm sure you will disagree, though.

And chicago directly contradicts that assessment...providing of course the reports out of chicago about some of the toughest gun laws in the nation is true.

 

[80zephyr]

by then it will be too late

the 2nd amendment was put into place so that citizens could check the power of the federal government; this ruling flies in the face of that intent

If you think you're going to stand up to the power of the federal government with an assault rifle (I'm guessing they mean AR-15 types? semi's actually?), I pity you.

Boy do you miss the point. It isn't one guy, it's millions, some of whom may very well be employed by federal, state and local governments. Stated differently, we have avoided real tyranny here because citizens, soldiers and cops alike have their own firearms at home, which we're all prepared to use.

Seriously? You don't think the Constitution and our democracy have anything to do with it? We're all getting along because we're afraid the opposition party might shoot us?
I don't think so. Maybe where you live--and if so, I'm glad I don't live there.

You mean the Constitution that guarantees our right to the means to defend ourselves against tyranny?

That one?

Thanks for making my point.

You know what I meant, o clever one.
Tyranny has NOT been avoided because of guns in every closet. It has been avoided because of checks and balances and the people's right to a representative government.

What ensures that right?

Mark

 

[TNHarley]

yes, hopefully they might start actually hearing this shit. There are 7 or 8 states that have similar infringements of liberty in place. Hopefully they all cease to exist.

Sooner or later they will get down to striking down the Sullivan Act in NYC, the one that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 or so in fees just to get a revolver to keep in my apartment.

I hope so! They only do that shit to curb purchase. Fucking fascists.

Yeah, the fucking fascists. Might have something to do with NYC's lower gun murder rate these days, too.

That has nothing to do with rifles with magazines now does it? Since they aren't used for much crime at all....or standard size magazines for that matter. So why did they allow a ban on items that are not a problem...?

I was talking to Marty, I believe, and referring to why gun crime in NYC-- where one works long and hard to get a gun--might be lower. Less guns = less gun crimes in that city? There could be a relationship there. I'm sure you will disagree, though.

When that act got put into place, murder went UP by 20%. Fact.

 

[2aguy]

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on assault rifles
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

---------
Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I assume, for the sake of consistency and honor, those same people also don't think the first applies to the internet and phones? You know, because they cant "extend it?"
Or maybe any religion developed after 1787, doesn't get the same rights as one developed pre-Constitution?
IDK maybe that's not what it means

lol, the Mormon polygamists don't get the same rights for their religion.

yeah, and muslims cant stone women for getting raped. You completely missed my point.

You're arguing that the 2nd Amendment strictly interpreted prohibits any restrictions on automatic weapons, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, bazookas, etc.

Arms that can be carried by an individual...rifles, pistols, knives, swords......and what is the problem with automatic weapons? They are no deadlier than a semi-auto rifle.....rocket launchers .....those are not the standard weapon of an infantry soldier,they are support weapons....

 

[2aguy]

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on assault rifles
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

---------
Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I assume, for the sake of consistency and honor, those same people also don't think the first applies to the internet and phones? You know, because they cant "extend it?"
Or maybe any religion developed after 1787, doesn't get the same rights as one developed pre-Constitution?
IDK maybe that's not what it means

lol, the Mormon polygamists don't get the same rights for their religion.

yeah, and muslims cant stone women for getting raped. You completely missed my point.

You're arguing that the 2nd Amendment strictly interpreted prohibits any restrictions on automatic weapons, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, bazookas, etc.

Indeed. With the first, liberty is the big thing. "your liberty ends at my nose" and all that. Having guns doesn't infringe on anyones liberty.
Granted, I don't understand why polygamists cant marry more than oen person.. Probably for tax reasons or something? Ugh, govt shouldn't be in marriage anyways..
In the second, the big thing is "shall not be infringed"

The first amendment says freedom of the press shall not be abridged, which is comparable to infringed,

but certainly it's not expected that the courts allow anything and everything to be published and distributed via the press.

And it is only infringed after the law is broken, not before. And journalists are not required to register their computers, or be registered or licensed before they can write ...

We have laws that state you can't rob, murder or rape.....when those laws are broken, people are punished...they are not Chipped and licensed to prevent them from comitting robbery, rape or murder......

You guys want the 2nd Amendment attacked before any law is broken.

 

[2aguy]

yes, hopefully they might start actually hearing this shit. There are 7 or 8 states that have similar infringements of liberty in place. Hopefully they all cease to exist.

Sooner or later they will get down to striking down the Sullivan Act in NYC, the one that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 or so in fees just to get a revolver to keep in my apartment.

I hope so! They only do that shit to curb purchase. Fucking fascists.

Yeah, the fucking fascists. Might have something to do with NYC's lower gun murder rate these days, too.

That has nothing to do with rifles with magazines now does it? Since they aren't used for much crime at all....or standard size magazines for that matter. So why did they allow a ban on items that are not a problem...?

I was talking to Marty, I believe, and referring to why gun crime in NYC-- where one works long and hard to get a gun--might be lower. Less guns = less gun crimes in that city? There could be a relationship there. I'm sure you will disagree, though.

No....Chicago has the exact same gun laws as New York and a smaller population.....but a higher gun murder rate...it is the fact that in New York they just cracked down on gangs and made massive arrests...also, they used to have stop and frisk......which you guys complained about....

In Chicago....repeat gun offenders go to jail for less than two years and are often redirected to Boot Camps that allow them to get out in less than 2 years......

New York gangs can get guns from out of state just like Chicago...the nature of their gang culture is different, they just made massive arrests against gangs...and they have longer prison sentences for gun criminals....those are what have kept New York gun murder down...that and their former stop and frisk policy.

 

[TNHarley]

I never understood how infringing the rights of law abiding people would help gun crime. Considering most gun CRIMES are done with illegal guns...
Even Newtown was done with an illegal gun. He had to kill to get it..

 

[2aguy]

Sooner or later they will get down to striking down the Sullivan Act in NYC, the one that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 or so in fees just to get a revolver to keep in my apartment.

I hope so! They only do that shit to curb purchase. Fucking fascists.

Yeah, the fucking fascists. Might have something to do with NYC's lower gun murder rate these days, too.

That has nothing to do with rifles with magazines now does it? Since they aren't used for much crime at all....or standard size magazines for that matter. So why did they allow a ban on items that are not a problem...?

I was talking to Marty, I believe, and referring to why gun crime in NYC-- where one works long and hard to get a gun--might be lower. Less guns = less gun crimes in that city? There could be a relationship there. I'm sure you will disagree, though.

And chicago directly contradicts that assessment...providing of course the reports out of chicago about some of the toughest gun laws in the nation is true.

They have the same laws as New York...but they don't prosecute repeat gun offenders...that is the biggest beef the police here have...they arrest gang thugs, with illegal guns...and they are back on the street on bail, and out of prison in less than 2 years......and then they kill.....

 

[2aguy]

For the record....the decison stated people shouldn't have access to military weapons...

Flintlock rifles were military weapons.

Bolt action rifles were militray rifles.

Pump action shot guns were military weapons.

6 shot revolvers were military weapons.

So according to this ruling none of those weapons would be allowed to citizens, since military weapons are not protected by Heller....and they are wrong on that by the way...

 

[NYcarbineer]

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on assault rifles
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

---------
Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I assume, for the sake of consistency and honor, those same people also don't think the first applies to the internet and phones? You know, because they cant "extend it?"
Or maybe any religion developed after 1787, doesn't get the same rights as one developed pre-Constitution?
IDK maybe that's not what it means

lol, the Mormon polygamists don't get the same rights for their religion.

yeah, and muslims cant stone women for getting raped. You completely missed my point.

You're arguing that the 2nd Amendment strictly interpreted prohibits any restrictions on automatic weapons, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, bazookas, etc.

Arms that can be carried by an individual...rifles, pistols, knives, swords......and what is the problem with automatic weapons? They are no deadlier than a semi-auto rifle.....rocket launchers .....those are not the standard weapon of an infantry soldier,they are support weapons....

You're reading a lot into the 2nd amendment. Nothing about 'standard infantry' weapons in the 2nd amendment.