Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.
In a nutshell?
The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it.
A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.
To call AR and AK platform rifles dangerous and unusual arms and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/
Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.
In a nutshell?
The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.
Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.
Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.
And neither are assault rifles.
A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.
To call AR and AK platform rifles dangerous and unusual arms and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/
A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.
To call AR and AK platform rifles dangerous and unusual arms and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/
Another great ruling by America's legal system.
Gun nutters eat shit with this one.
Their penis substitutes are going to be more expensive for them.
Says she who has not a single clue regarding the subject, arguing, and happily so, only from emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty.Brilliant judge!!
Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.
In a nutshell?
The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.
Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.
Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.
And neither are assault rifles.
Fuck you. If a police officer can carry a weapon, any other citizen should be able to carry the exact same weapon. Disarm one, you have to disarm the other.
Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.
Indeed.In the SCOTUS decision of District of Columbia v Heller (2008), Justice Scalia wrote in citing the Miller decision, "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.".
And, according to Miller, what weapons are those?
If a person takes the effort, one could read that the Miller decision revolved around the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The case did not involve pointing to classifications of weapons, just the constitutionality of the NFA.
Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.
Bubba and a keger aren't a 'well-regulated militia.'
Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.
In a nutshell?
The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.
Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.
Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.
And neither are assault rifles.
A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.
To call AR and AK platform rifles dangerous and unusual arms and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/
Then why are the military police using AR15s against the Ferguson citizens?
Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.
In a nutshell?
The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.
Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.
Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.
And neither are assault rifles.
Do you actually believe that tripe??
I know you are a liberal, but you aren't a stupid one.
It is a dangerous weapon, that damn AR I had would jam a lot, making my ability to kill a danger to myself from not killing the other guy first...
A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.
To call AR and AK platform rifles dangerous and unusual arms and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/
Incorrect.
The ruling is consistent with other rulings concerning similar restrictions in Connecticut and New York, and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence. holding that although jurisdictions may enact bans on particular types of firearms, they may not ban firearms outright. Such restrictions are Constitutional provided citizens have some type of access to firearms for self defense.
From your cited article:
The Act substantially serves the governments interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,  she wrote.
A 'significant burden' would manifest should a jurisdiction seek to prohibit possession of all handguns, or firearms overall. Laws allowing the possession of handguns, rifles, shotguns, but not AR or AK platforms are Constitutional because they do not violate the right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.
Consequently it is the OP who is ignorant of the law, not the judge who is 'ignorant' of firearms.
And that Clinton appointed the judge who ruled in this case is irrelevant, as the judge who ruled that the New York SAFE Act banning AR platform rifles was Constitutional, Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny, was appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990.
Thus the OP's effort to contrive this into some sort of 'partisan issue' fails.
I acknowledge and accept the fact that this is indeed current Second Amendment jurisprudence, although I disagree with it. This and similar rulings are likely subject to appeal, and may eventually come before the Supreme Court, at which time a determination will be made that the Second Amendment right is more comprehensive, placing a greater burden upon the state to justify the banning of specific firearms, invalidating New York's SAFE Act and like measures such as the one in Maryland.
and until then people's rights are fucked. They should be compensated by the state if and when the SC clarifies the meaning of the 2nd amendment.
Bad laws have to result in consequences for the governments that pass them.
A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.
To call AR and AK platform rifles dangerous and unusual arms and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/
Incorrect.
The ruling is consistent with other rulings concerning similar restrictions in Connecticut and New York, and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence. holding that although jurisdictions may enact bans on particular types of firearms, they may not ban firearms outright. Such restrictions are Constitutional provided citizens have some type of access to firearms for self defense.
From your cited article:
The Act substantially serves the governments interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,  she wrote.
A 'significant burden' would manifest should a jurisdiction seek to prohibit possession of all handguns, or firearms overall. Laws allowing the possession of handguns, rifles, shotguns, but not AR or AK platforms are Constitutional because they do not violate the right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.
Consequently it is the OP who is ignorant of the law, not the judge who is 'ignorant' of firearms.
And that Clinton appointed the judge who ruled in this case is irrelevant, as the judge who ruled that the New York SAFE Act banning AR platform rifles was Constitutional, Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny, was appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990.
Thus the OP's effort to contrive this into some sort of 'partisan issue' fails.
I acknowledge and accept the fact that this is indeed current Second Amendment jurisprudence, although I disagree with it. This and similar rulings are likely subject to appeal, and may eventually come before the Supreme Court, at which time a determination will be made that the Second Amendment right is more comprehensive, placing a greater burden upon the state to justify the banning of specific firearms, invalidating New York's SAFE Act and like measures such as the one in Maryland.
Actually you would be totally wrong. The Supreme Court ruled in 1939 that the 2nd applied to "military" type weapons. Weapons in use, of use and in current use in the civilian population. The AR-15 and AK-47 are IN FACT the very weapons the 2nd protects.
Nice dodge. OK, it was an obvious dodge. Because hte answer is given in Heller: Weapons commonly used. No rifle is more commonly used in America than the AR15. It is "America's Rifle."
M14 asked about Miller. I responded to that question accurately...no dodge. You are in gadfly mode, huh?
No, you did not answer the question accurate. Yes, you did dodge it. Miller speaks directly to what is considered an appropriate militia weapon, which would be protected under the 2A. In Miller's case they ruiled the short barrel shotgun was not such a weapon. Which implies that there are a class of weapons that are protected, as being serviceable for the militia.
Those would certainly include the AR15, America's Rifle.In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
Nice dodge. OK, it was an obvious dodge. Because hte answer is given in Heller: Weapons commonly used. No rifle is more commonly used in America than the AR15. It is "America's Rifle."
M14 asked about Miller. I responded to that question accurately...no dodge. You are in gadfly mode, huh?
No, you did not answer the question accurate. Yes, you did dodge it. Miller speaks directly to what is considered an appropriate militia weapon, which would be protected under the 2A. In Miller's case they ruiled the short barrel shotgun was not such a weapon. Which implies that there are a class of weapons that are protected, as being serviceable for the militia.
That is total BULL! If Miller says what you claim highlighted above, cite the passages that support your outlandish statements! As to the second bit, the Syllabus of Miller has the following passage;
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." It doesn't imply a thing in and of itself in line with your thought! Wait and read further.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice [emphasis added, sic] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
J. McReynolds did cite it in Miller. But it doesn't mean what you think it means. This is where knowing how to read helps! Return above to the Syllabus of Miller and note the reasoning of the Court; here is the legal definition of "judicial notice"
Wex Legal Dictionary: Judicial notice is used by a court when it declares a fact presented as evidence as true without a formal presentation of evidence. A court can take judicial notice of indisputable facts.
Since both the Tennessee Judge and J. McReynolds ruled in their respective cases that they declined judicial notice, that meant neither could pin their decisions relative to Amendment II, the direct opposite of your assumption. PAY ATTENTION TO THE PARTICULARS OF A CASE AND DON'T READ NRA BS IN TO IT!
Those would certainly include the AR15, America's Rifle.
