US Appeals court upholds Marylands unconstitutional ban on scary guns

[OKTexas]

Wow, if they are so damned mentally ill, why would the judge discuss anything with them? Thanks, you just proved my point.

The judge is obligated by law to give the recipient a hearing. That fact was lost on you. Nobody is declared incompetent to handle their own finances without a state, federal or ALJ making that determination.

Not true, my dad never appeared before anyone, it was all done on paper.

 

[rich stacy]

Millions of law abiding citizens should have their 2nd amendment rights taken away because a handful of crazy nut jobs might go on a shooting spree?

Compare to the impact to the billions who fly, post 9-11.

 

[rich stacy]

Let's just ignore they're not the same, the standard AR is made from lower grade materials, most have different rifling in the barrel and doesn't have the same rate of fire. Mine didn't even come with the same sights.

Standard AR is a misnomer. Colt makes M16's and AR-15's from virtually identical components. Other manufacturers make thair AR's from cheaper grade components.

 

[OKTexas]

Let's just ignore they're not the same, the standard AR is made from lower grade materials, most have different rifling in the barrel and doesn't have the same rate of fire. Mine didn't even come with the same sights.

Standard AR is a misnomer. Colt makes M16's and AR-15's from virtually identical components. Other manufacturers make thair AR's from cheaper grade components.

Virtually = not the same.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?

It is a reference to courts power of judicial review and loose and strict constructionist applications of that power. Raoul Berger discussed the idea quite thoroughly here. It's hardly a new or arcane topic of legal debate. Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson were at odds over the approach to Constitutional and legal interpretation.

The principles of loose and strict construction became most pronounced in the debate over the creation of the Bank of the United States and led, by the time Adams became POTUS, to a schism among Federalists whereby some Founders ceased to identify as Federalists and formed the Democratic-Republican party.

• Jefferson opposed the Bank on the grounds that there was no authorization in the Constitution.
• Hamilton favored the Bank on the grounds that what the Constitution did not forbid it permitted.
• Washington, who was President at the time, concurred with Hamilton.

For all the bitter "back and fourth" about legal theory/philosophy that led Jefferson and others to form the D-R Party, after Jefferson became POTUS, he changed his mind and became a bigger Federalist and loose constructionist than Washington or Adams ever were.

The Louisiana Purchase is one example. Jefferson knew that he did not have the authority to engage in such a deal with France, because it was not a power specifically granted to him in the Constitution. However, he completed the Louisiana Purchase anyway because he “thought it his duty” to risk himself for the good of the United States. Of his decision to make the purchase, Jefferson wrote, "every good officer must be ready to risk himself in going beyond the strict line of law." There was no question in Jefferson's mind that he was violating the principles of strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution; he knew quite well that the only grounds that justified the LA Purchase lay in loose constructionist jurisprudence.

It's easy to sit at one's desk and espouse strict construction and rail against leaders who don't adhere to it. How could it not be? It's as easy as falling off a log because quite literally it is legal theorist's equivalent of falling off or staying on the log. It's not hard to binarily evaluate anything; one need not think much and need only know a very little if that be one's approach to legal theory, indeed anything. If, on the other hand, one comes to a juncture whereby one can see that one must with alacrity act yet one's hands and mind are bound by strict constructionism, does one discard that shackle and act or does one retain it and forgo opportunity or do the "wrong thing" in the name of adhering to strict constructionism?

Obviously, had Jefferson adhered to his previously strong views that the Constitution should be strictly construed, the U.S. we know today would not exist. Thus in Jefferson's evolution from strict constructionist principles to loose constructionist ones is seen both the dilemma and reality of governance. The instant one's legal, political and cognitive myopia leads one to espouse strict constructionist principles, one is forced into a position that is untenable if one is to govern effectively. The fact of the matter is that few things are as "black and white" as strict construction requires, and one simply never can foresee every single possibility and expressly enumerate it in legislations, and the instant one ventures to say something similar to "such and such a law meant or didn't mean this or that," one has "crossed the border" and left the realm of strict construction.

 

[danielpalos]

Settled 2nd Amendment case law.

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

Sanctuary cities are all that stand between gun lovers and federal supremacy regarding 10USC311.

The only thing that stands between you and AIDS is a condom, flake.

The circuit ruling will be appealed to the SCOTUS and be vacated after Gorsuch is seated. Now go hit the poll at your local gay bar and DNC affiliate.

funny, dear; we have a Second Article of Amendment.

and,

sanctuary cities can "do it without you".

 

[rich stacy]

The judge is obligated by law to give the recipient a hearing. That fact was lost on you. Nobody is declared incompetent to handle their own finances without a state, federal or ALJ making that determination.

Not true, my dad never appeared before anyone, it was all done on paper.

You said ". VA required my dad to appoint someone to handle his finances to qualify for certain benefits."

Which is a granting of benefits. I was referring to what it takes to modify or deny existing benefits

 

[rich stacy]

Virtually = not the same.

vir·tu·al·ly = nearly; almost.
adverb

ynonyms: effectively, in effect, all but, more or less, practically, almost, nearly, close to, verging on,just about, as good as, essentially, to all intents and purposes, roughly, approximately;

 

[Pete7469]

Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war

You have NO POWER TO DENY 2nd Amendment protection to ANY WEAPON carried by an individual.


.

 

[OKTexas]

The judge is obligated by law to give the recipient a hearing. That fact was lost on you. Nobody is declared incompetent to handle their own finances without a state, federal or ALJ making that determination.

Not true, my dad never appeared before anyone, it was all done on paper.

You said ". VA required my dad to appoint someone to handle his finances to qualify for certain benefits."

Which is a granting of benefits. I was referring to what it takes to modify or deny existing benefits

Well why didn't you say that? Of course that still doesn't explain how administrative people can take your constitutional rights.

 

[OKTexas]

Virtually = not the same.

vir·tu·al·ly = nearly; almost.
adverb

ynonyms: effectively, in effect, all but, more or less, practically, almost, nearly, close to, verging on,just about, as good as, essentially, to all intents and purposes, roughly, approximately;

Of course you know close only counts in horse shoes, hand grenades and atom bombs.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Why do you get to decide?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

You do realize that the M-4 used by our military is designed to fire single rounds (semi-auto) or 3 round bursts. Full auto is never used because it wastes ammo and makes the weapon impossible to aim accurately. Right?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

We are talking hundred million people verses MAYBE one million. You really think most of the military is going to drop bombs on civilians?

I don't really follow you, and no, I DON'T think it will happen (in our lifetimes, anyway) but if it were to happen, your hunting rifle is not going to save you.

Most of our military personnel are killed or injured by IEDs, not small arms.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

We are talking hundred million people verses MAYBE one million. You really think most of the military is going to drop bombs on civilians?

I don't really follow you, and no, I DON'T think it will happen (in our lifetimes, anyway) but if it were to happen, your hunting rifle is not going to save you.

There are probably a third of the country that would fight the govt it went completely insane. There are 4 million (roughly) in the service. Most of them aren't going to fire on us. Some people take their oaths seriously.
100M hunting rifles absolutely WOULD make a difference.

Not against a tank, a drone or a missile, no, it won't.

The Taliban and ISIS sure do seem to be holding their own!

 

[2aguy]

Weapons of war? Is the appeals court retarded? AR15's are not being used in any war by any branch of our military.

Personally I don't own an AR15 "assault" rifle, I own an AR15 defense rifle. If some murderous home invader punks break into my house I'll use the same rifles and pistols law enforcement use to protect themselves from these punks.

As I pointed out to that one poster...clayton....he always would say that legal Precedent protects our gun rights....and the 4th just demonstrated, again, that left wing judges do not give a flying rats ass about legal or historical Precedent....they make up whatever they want to justify whatever they want.....

There is no historical or legal Precedent which supports the 4th Circuit in their ruling...in fact....historic and Supreme Court decisions specifically say they are wrong....on all counts of their decision....

Heller v. District of Columbia

United States v. Miller

Caetano v. Massechuesettes...

All 3 are just 3 Supreme Court decisions that say they are wrong beside all the other Supreme court and historic Precedents that say they are wrong.....and they didn't care....

 

[2aguy]

We should be able to have whatever the military has.

Please list the upside and any unintended consequences of your opinion.

What do you think the purpose of the 2nd was?
Please consider the words of the people that actually wrote it.

I've considered the words written in the 2nd A. often; the words written by men in the 18th Century who could not and were not informed by the weapons of today. Somethings are universal, the 2nd A. was an appropriate right in the 18th and early 19th Century. By the time of the civil war the control of weapons became necessary, and was employed by civil authorities with little or no objections.

Today we have weapons not imagined by the founders, weapons which can end all life on our planet, and hand held weapons with can kill masses of people by a single person in 60 seconds. Those are facts, facts which an enlightened, civil and rational people respect, and N. Korea and the NRA ignore.

Sorry...the 2nd Amendment is not trapped in time........otherwise you couldn't use your computer if the government said so....

From Heller on this specific issue....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997),

and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
---

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007)
School authorities do not violate the First Amendment when they stop students from expressing views that may be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use.

That has no bearing on the 2nd Amendment...considering Miller, Heller and Caetano tell the 4th they are wrong.....

 

[2aguy]

What is the attraction of an AR15 if it is no different from any other rifle of the same caliber?

It is the most commonly used rifle in the United States...it has almost no recoil, can carry any number of optics, lights and lasers, and very small to very large people can shoot it easily........

 

[2aguy]

It should have included the VA, bureaucrats are not judges and have no authority to remove anyones constitutional rights for any reason. If someone is truly mentally ill to the point they present a danger to others, take them to court and have them adjudicated as such. Why do you want to deny your fellow citizens due process?

Administrative judges for the SSA have granted them due process. And they were determined to be unfit to handle their own finances.

So...that in no way shows they are dangerous people...or incapable of using a gun for self defense....

 

[2aguy]

Mine is an AR style hog gun, it has an inferred scope because those suckers show up at night. So maybe a better name for it is a utility rifle, they have many uses.

These gun control assholes LIE that's my big issue with them. They can't make their case without lying, or they have no case without lying maybe that's why the lie. There was one of those assholes on ABC claiming the Sandyhook shooter used a full auto rifle which was a blatant lie.

That's what an ends justify the means mentality gets you. They attempt to redefine terms and control the narrative, accuracy means nothing. The incitement of emotions is their primary weapon. Rational people that look at the facts are their worse enemy and they will treat them as such.

"WASHINGTON —The House of Representatives approved its first effort of the new Congress to roll back gun regulations, voting to overturn a rule that would bar gun ownership by some who have been deemed mentally impaired by the Social Security Administration.

"The House voted 235-180 largely along party lines Thursday to repeal an Obama-era rule requiring the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries to the federal firearms background check system after they’ve been deemed mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs."

After the shooting of Congress Women Gabby Giffords there was a call by the NRA that gun control was bad, but keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill was good.

Now, the NRA supports efforts to do what they claimed was appropriate, and once again members of the GOP Caucus in Congress put their job security before common sense.

It should have included the VA, bureaucrats are not judges and have no authority to remove anyones constitutional rights for any reason. If someone is truly mentally ill to the point they present a danger to others, take them to court and have them adjudicated as such. Why do you want to deny your fellow citizens due process?

Because the truly dangerous mentally ill are not obvious, as can be seen by the events of the last couple of decades.

There are between 357-400 million guns.....and those who are mentally ill and killers are the most rare of all killers...you are more likely to run into a tiger running around than a dangerously mentally ill person using a gun....