US Appeals court upholds Marylands unconstitutional ban on scary guns

[NYcarbineer]

Background checks don't take gun rights away from law abiding citizens.

Yes they do...they require a fee. And if a gun store doesn't want to do the background check...then what? Then you have to go to the police..who are already over burdened.....

Anything that requires a fee is Unconstitutional......you can't put a fee on the exercise of a Right...the democrats put a poll tax on the Right to vote to keep blacks from voting, and that was unConstitutional.......a fee for a background check is no different.

So gun sales should be outlawed? Because they are charging a fee for the right to own a gun.

Goddam that's funny.

Nope...they are an item created by another person.............putting a fee on buying that item is unConstitutional.....just like putting a fee on the Right ot vote is unConstitutional.

Background checks don't take gun rights away from law abiding citizens.

Yes they do...they require a fee. And if a gun store doesn't want to do the background check...then what? Then you have to go to the police..who are already over burdened.....

Anything that requires a fee is Unconstitutional......you can't put a fee on the exercise of a Right...the democrats put a poll tax on the Right to vote to keep blacks from voting, and that was unConstitutional.......a fee for a background check is no different.

So you believe that voter ID should be provided to all at no cost to the individual.

They already are...and yes....voter i.d. should be provided for free.......if you don't have another form of I.D. for driving...if you don't drive, you get a voter i.d. for free....

The right to bear arms is the right to own an item.

Would that include chemical 'arms'?

It apparently to these people includes bazookas grenade launchers rocket launchers.

 

[OldLady]

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

Well, thank you for at least explaining what you folks mean by successfully revolting against the government using assault rifles. If the government goes "bad," of course they'll kill loyal citizens. If they're "bad," they're not behaving like our government today. But anyway,

I would certainly hope this whole conversation is an intellectual exercise and not something anyone hopes or believes will be happening in our lifetimes. War, my boys, never has a winner.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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..

Background checks don't take gun rights away from law abiding citizens.

Yes they do...they require a fee. And if a gun store doesn't want to do the background check...then what? Then you have to go to the police..who are already over burdened.....

Anything that requires a fee is Unconstitutional......you can't put a fee on the exercise of a Right...the democrats put a poll tax on the Right to vote to keep blacks from voting, and that was unConstitutional.......a fee for a background check is no different.

So gun sales should be outlawed? Because they are charging a fee for the right to own a gun.

Goddam that's funny.

Sales taxes on 'arms'?

And I guess free transportation to wherever you vote.

 

[there4eyeM]

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

Well, thank you for at least explaining what you folks mean by successfully revolting against the government using assault rifles. If the government goes "bad," of course they'll kill loyal citizens. If they're "bad," they're not behaving like our government today. But anyway,

I would certainly hope this whole conversation is an intellectual exercise and not something anyone hopes or believes will be happening in our lifetimes. War, my boys, never has a winner.

Talk is cheap, isn't it? Amusing to see all the testosterone dripping off some of these posts. Dreams of heroism and glory, very adolescent. How many would pass a winter in a foxhole filled with snow?

 

[TNHarley]

I would certainly hope this whole conversation is an intellectual exercise and not something anyone hopes or believes will be happening in our lifetimes. War, my boys, never has a winner.

Absolutely!

 

[pwjohn]

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

The baseless conclusions you're drawing in response to the courts ruling aren't working for me.

Hmmmm.....according to this;

The AR-15 refers to any of several rifles: These include: ArmaLite AR-15, a selective-fire rifle manufactured by ArmaLite, and predecessor of the ...

 

[TNHarley]

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

The baseless conclusions you're drawing in response to the courts ruling aren't working for me.

Hmmmm.....according to this;

The AR-15 refers to any of several rifles: These include: ArmaLite AR-15, a selective-fire rifle manufactured by ArmaLite, and predecessor of the ...

Do you know what a question mark is? Just wonderin..

 

[pwjohn]

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

The baseless conclusions you're drawing in response to the courts ruling aren't working for me.

Hmmmm.....according to this;

The AR-15 refers to any of several rifles: These include: ArmaLite AR-15, a selective-fire rifle manufactured by ArmaLite, and predecessor of the ...

Do you know what a question mark is? Just wonderin..

Words sometimes overpower punctuation.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Yes they do...they require a fee. And if a gun store doesn't want to do the background check...then what? Then you have to go to the police..who are already over burdened.....

Anything that requires a fee is Unconstitutional......you can't put a fee on the exercise of a Right...the democrats put a poll tax on the Right to vote to keep blacks from voting, and that was unConstitutional.......a fee for a background check is no different.

So gun sales should be outlawed? Because they are charging a fee for the right to own a gun.

Goddam that's funny.

Nope...they are an item created by another person.............putting a fee on buying that item is unConstitutional.....just like putting a fee on the Right ot vote is unConstitutional.

Yes they do...they require a fee. And if a gun store doesn't want to do the background check...then what? Then you have to go to the police..who are already over burdened.....

Anything that requires a fee is Unconstitutional......you can't put a fee on the exercise of a Right...the democrats put a poll tax on the Right to vote to keep blacks from voting, and that was unConstitutional.......a fee for a background check is no different.

So you believe that voter ID should be provided to all at no cost to the individual.

They already are...and yes....voter i.d. should be provided for free.......if you don't have another form of I.D. for driving...if you don't drive, you get a voter i.d. for free....

The right to bear arms is the right to own an item.

Would that include chemical 'arms'?

It apparently to these people includes bazookas grenade launchers rocket launchers.

Do any of the United States law enforcement agencies have them in their armories?

*****SMILE*****

 

[bendog]

Yep....Naziland....

Now onto the new conservative SCOTUS......

Since Scalia isn't there, that's one less vote for upholding legislative "bans" on "military type" weapons.

 

[2aguy]

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..

Background checks don't take gun rights away from law abiding citizens.

Yes they do...they require a fee. And if a gun store doesn't want to do the background check...then what? Then you have to go to the police..who are already over burdened.....

Anything that requires a fee is Unconstitutional......you can't put a fee on the exercise of a Right...the democrats put a poll tax on the Right to vote to keep blacks from voting, and that was unConstitutional.......a fee for a background check is no different.

So gun sales should be outlawed? Because they are charging a fee for the right to own a gun.

Goddam that's funny.

Nope...they are an item created by another person.............putting a fee on buying that item is unConstitutional.....just like putting a fee on the Right ot vote is unConstitutional.

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..

Background checks don't take gun rights away from law abiding citizens.

Yes they do...they require a fee. And if a gun store doesn't want to do the background check...then what? Then you have to go to the police..who are already over burdened.....

Anything that requires a fee is Unconstitutional......you can't put a fee on the exercise of a Right...the democrats put a poll tax on the Right to vote to keep blacks from voting, and that was unConstitutional.......a fee for a background check is no different.

So you believe that voter ID should be provided to all at no cost to the individual.

They already are...and yes....voter i.d. should be provided for free.......if you don't have another form of I.D. for driving...if you don't drive, you get a voter i.d. for free....

The right to bear arms is the right to own an item.

Not the right to force someone to give you one......or stopping people from making and selling them...

 

[2aguy]

Yes they do...they require a fee. And if a gun store doesn't want to do the background check...then what? Then you have to go to the police..who are already over burdened.....

Anything that requires a fee is Unconstitutional......you can't put a fee on the exercise of a Right...the democrats put a poll tax on the Right to vote to keep blacks from voting, and that was unConstitutional.......a fee for a background check is no different.

So gun sales should be outlawed? Because they are charging a fee for the right to own a gun.

Goddam that's funny.

Nope...they are an item created by another person.............putting a fee on buying that item is unConstitutional.....just like putting a fee on the Right ot vote is unConstitutional.

My right to vote requires a 'background check' so to speak that isn't free.

There is no direct fee for voting.....that is what the democrats did to keep blacks from voting...it was called a Poll Tax...if you couldn't pay, you couldn't vote...the same for a background check.....it could cost as much as several hundred dollars......or as little as ten.....but no matter how much, it is a fee to exercise a Right and it is unConstitutional....

So you want felons to get guns. Interesting.

Nope.....when you catch a felon with a gun, you arrest them...background checks don't stop them from getting guns in the first place. The best, least offensive solution for law abiding people...and the one that doesn't violate Constitutional Rights is to arrest felons when you catch them with guns....and put them in prison for 30 years.

 

[2aguy]

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..

Background checks don't take gun rights away from law abiding citizens.

Yes they do...they require a fee. And if a gun store doesn't want to do the background check...then what? Then you have to go to the police..who are already over burdened.....

Anything that requires a fee is Unconstitutional......you can't put a fee on the exercise of a Right...the democrats put a poll tax on the Right to vote to keep blacks from voting, and that was unConstitutional.......a fee for a background check is no different.

So gun sales should be outlawed? Because they are charging a fee for the right to own a gun.

Goddam that's funny.

Sales taxes on 'arms'?

And I guess free transportation to wherever you vote.

There is no right to transportation..that is why you vote in your own town......if they move the location to where a majority of the citizens can't reach it....you vote by mail.....see how that works....?

 

[2aguy]

Weapons of war....

The Lever action rifle.

The 7 round magazine on the Colt 1911 pistol. So that means a 10 round limit is too much and is a weapon of war.....


My grandfather carried a small, single stack .380 that held less than 8 rounds....as an officer in the Army in World War 2...that means those guns are weapons of war too...

 

[danielpalos]

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

Seems like our legislators merely need to come up with a fixed Standard for Arms, for the unorganized militia.

Like shall not infringe?

only the well regulated militia is necessary.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Seems like our legislators merely need to come up with a fixed Standard for Arms, for the unorganized militia.

"fixed?" Lol

we don't have true capitalism.

 

[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

Seems like our legislators merely need to come up with a fixed Standard for Arms, for the unorganized militia.

Like shall not infringe?

only the well regulated militia is necessary.

Sorry...that has no bearing.....it is an individual right.....not a group right...as the Supreme Court found in Heller v. District of Columbia...

 

[owebo]

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

Seems like our legislators merely need to come up with a fixed Standard for Arms, for the unorganized militia.

"fixed?" Lol

we don't have true capitalism.

We,are eliminating your fascism.....

 

[owebo]

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

Seems like our legislators merely need to come up with a fixed Standard for Arms, for the unorganized militia.

Like shall not infringe?

only the well regulated militia is necessary.

In addition to individual gun rights...

 

[jillian]

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

are you of the delusion that it is inappropriate to regulate guns?

before you answer you should try reading heller... bveause that isn't what the holding is.