Idiot Judge rules AR 15s are “dangerous and unusual arms”.

[bripat9643]

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.

Where does the Constitution say a standing military "nullifies" the 2nd Amendment?

 

[turtledude]

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/

the Clinton fluffer's opinion has so many lies in it (bullets shot from an AR 15 are more deadly than the same bullets shot out of a Remington 700) that the judge should be impeached for incompetence and jailed for perjury

 

[turtledude]

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.

what is not reasonable are morons whining about weapons they don't even understand

anything CIVILIAN cops have for self defense against criminals so should the rest of us and that includes REAL ASSAULT RIFLES

AR 15s as sold in the USA and made after May 19, 1986 are not assault rifles

learn what you blather about or you will look like a moron

 

[Wildman]

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/

what a stupid *****, AR-15's and AK's have been around longer than she has been a living oxygen waster.

 

[turtledude]

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.

well if it isn't' the DP goat boy spewing his usual idiocy here. Its a stupid ruling by a dishonest POS judge

 

[turtledude]

Brilliant judge!!

Says she who has not a single clue regarding the subject, arguing, and happily so, only from emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty.

what do you expect from the goat boy?

 

[turtledude]

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.

**** 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.

EXACTLY

CIVILIAN police officers have NO GREATER RIGHT TO ENGAGE CIVILIAN CRIMINALS than any other civilian does. Under the legal concept of estoppel, a state government cannot issue weapons to its civilian employees and then claim that such weapons HAVE NO SUITABLE purpose for other civilians to own

if cops can use them we can own them

end of story

 

[Wildman]

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.

"Assault Rifles" are not permitted for civilians, unless they shell out $15,000.00+, pay the Gvmt. $200.00 for a TAX stamp, fillout reams of paperwork, wait up to a year or more before taking possession of said firearm...., if the current Admin. approves.

 

[R.C. Christian]

If you take away the scary accessories, the Magpul furniture, the flash suppressor, the 30 round mags etc., it's just pop gun. It's not something I'd shoot a deer with.

 

[turtledude]

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.".

Indeed.
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.

the Defendant had no argument made in his behalf at the USSC and no tenth amendment argument was advanced. so the justices merely tried to placate FDR and pretend that the government had the power to pass such a law because no 10th amendment argument was raised

 

[turtledude]

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.'

and the right was not guaranteed for the militia but the people

DUH

 

[Wildman]

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.

humm within reason ???? opinion ?????

"And neither are assault rifles" in your opinion...., RIGHT ?

i believe you need another lesson about ""assault rifles""

The Truth About Assault Weapons

please read the info at the above URL, if you have trouble reading it find someone who can read it to you.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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/

indeed

 

[jon_berzerk]

Then why are the military police using AR15s against the Ferguson citizens?

the goings on on Ferguson

on both sides of the fence

are examples of why one never gives up

the right to arms

 

[Wildman]

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.

ooooh yes he is, if he does not understand the 2A.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

- See more at: Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

the above URL is a very good place to go for Constitutional learning....., especially for liberdummies.

also:

The Truth About Assault Weapons

 

[Wildman]

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...

try cleaning it once in a while !

today i went to our local shooting range and fired 100 rnds. from my old Colt AR-15, SP-1....., NOT one malfunction.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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 government’s 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.

home built with 80 percent finished lower

none the wiser

 

[jon_berzerk]

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 government’s 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.

that is why it was remanded to the lower court

to find out if "Millers shotgun" was a useful weapon for military purpose

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

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.

Those would certainly include the AR15, America's Rifle.

In Miller's case they ruiled the short barrel shotgun was not such a weapon

only because they had not heard millers argument

"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.

the court left open the possibility there was evidence the U.S. military had used

short barreled shotguns or that civilians used them in common defense


"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"

the court made it clear that certain weapons useful to the militia military or common

defense may lawfully be owned without being subject to any special formalities

through that prism

ar-15s and such are protected firearms

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

...