US Appeals court upholds Marylands unconstitutional ban on scary guns

[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

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.

It's actually unconstitutional....

 

[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

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.

Yes

 

[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.

It's actually unconstitutional....

no. it isn't. but thanks for your non-opinion, troll boy

 

[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.

Yes

like i said, read heller. because even scalia, the windiest of the wingers ... said "reasonable regulation" is fine... it just can't be a total ban.

now be a good little boy and read the case. go learn something.

 

[Dr Grump]

Who gives a shit. The second is about militias. Not armed every tom, dick and harry...

 

[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

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.

Yes

like i said, read heller. because even scalia, the windiest of the wingers ... said "reasonable regulation" is fine... it just can't be a total ban.

now be a good little boy and read the case. go learn something.

I don't give a fuck. The second amendment is clear. You just can't understand because you are a LWNJ and can't read

 

[TNHarley]

Who gives a shit. The second is about militias. Not armed every tom, dick and harry...

Lol how stupid

 

[jillian]

Who gives a shit. The second is about militias. Not armed every tom, dick and harry...

you know they don't accept that right? but then they complain about courts legislating from the bench.

 

[Dr Grump]

Who gives a shit. The second is about militias. Not armed every tom, dick and harry...

Lol how stupid

Those first four words mean something, otherwise why are they there? Talk about stupid...

 

[TNHarley]

Who gives a shit. The second is about militias. Not armed every tom, dick and harry...

Lol how stupid

Those first four words mean something, otherwise why are they there? Talk about stupid...

Yea because the second was never clarified..
You slimy leftists are always raping words and intent. It's what you do; fuck shit up.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yea because the second was never clarified..
You slimy leftists are always raping words and intent. It's what you do; fuck shit up.

I'm sorry but I don't think you have the right to have an AK47 or a grenade launcher. Call me civilised.

 

[TNHarley]

Yea because the second was never clarified..
You slimy leftists are always raping words and intent. It's what you do; fuck shit up.

I'm sorry but I don't think you have the right to have an AK47 or a grenade launcher. Call me civilised.

Or a sheep. What are you gonna do something happens? I would guess you have a bulls eye tattooed on your ass, but most Americans are sheep pussies. At least I like to think that.

 

[Dr Grump]

Or a sheep. What are you gonna do something happens? I would guess you have a bulls eye tattooed on your ass, but most Americans are sheep pussies. At least I like to think that.

What if an asteroid hits the planet? What if the flying spaghetti monster turns out to be real? What if, what if, what if....

 

[Damaged Eagle]

like i said, read heller. because even scalia, the windiest of the wingers ... said "reasonable regulation" is fine... it just can't be a total ban.

now be a good little boy and read the case. go learn something.

So long as all law enforcement agencies and other civil agencies are complying by the same rules.

If the government wants to set rules then they need to comply and lead by example.

*****SMILE*****

 

[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

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.

No...that is not what the holding is....and guns are already regulated, more than most items that we have......the Heller ruling was that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, that the D.C. hand gun ban was unconstitutional, and that the mandate for safety locks was unConstitutional.....and that weapons in "Common Use" are the weapons that Americans can own, carry and use for self defense.....the AR-15 and other magazine fed rifles are the most common types of rifles in both civilian and police hands......they are protected by the right to bear arms......

 

[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

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.

Yes

like i said, read heller. because even scalia, the windiest of the wingers ... said "reasonable regulation" is fine... it just can't be a total ban.

now be a good little boy and read the case. go learn something.

And by reasonable he did not say that anti gunners can ban everything they want as long as they leave a few antique, useless weapons available.....

And he specifically mentioned as reasonable, not allowing felons and the dangerously mentally ill from having access....banning AR-15s was not reasonable as Heller points out in the Common Use provision.....

 

[2aguy]

Who gives a shit. The second is about militias. Not armed every tom, dick and harry...

Lol how stupid

Those first four words mean something, otherwise why are they there? Talk about stupid...

The entire sentence was broken down in the Heller decision.....and the individual right was upheld.......

 

[Rustic]

Like I said Maryland is a good place to take a shit

 

[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.

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...

Sanctuary cities are all that stands in the way of federal supremacy, for the Militia of the United States.

 

[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.

In addition to individual gun rights...

Natural rights are recognized and secured by State Constitutions and available via Due Process.