Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

>Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

>ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

>In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.

>"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

>Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it's "unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment."

>Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn't even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority "has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms." He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

- nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapons-not-protected-second-amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

Well, then...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

SHALL

>AR-15
>Weapon of war

Right...

sounds liek those faggot judges need to all be shot.

>"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.
but DC vs Heller didn't explicitly say anything about weapons of war. it explicitly said that the 2A is not unlimited in its protections and that the feds can and will continue to regulate firearms and their ownership.

That's quite the fucking leap to "we can't fuxx with weapons of war n shiet"

This is BULLSHIT.

thank god i left this shit state and moved to virginia. almost about time i left here though and went to WV panhandle.

This. The jewdiciary is drunk with power, and needs to be held accountable.

HAVE

>Assault Weapons
>assault weapons
>weapons of war
>weapons of war
Sounds like a mantra of sorts...

if you can't own a tab of LSD legally you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, but this country is fucking retarded so whatever

>the second amendment doesn't protect weapons of war
>the muskets and canons used during the revolutionnary war weren't weapons of war


Really made me think... about how every leftist should be beheaded right this instant.

Heller only stands for the proposition that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a handgun in the home.

>but DC vs Heller didn't explicitly say anything about weapons of war
what the fuck is a weapon of war? pretty cool using nebulous terms that can mean anything you want them to mean

>a mind altering substance is illegal therefore tools of self-defense should be illegal too

Wait a second. Police agencies around the country use AR 15's with standard mags. They're claiming that civillian police agencies are using weapons of war on the streets, and that this is OK.

can somebody please explain to me what a weapon of war is?

>Maryland
>Being cucked on guns law
As a native Maryland, not surprised. Our nigger state senate drove Beretta and thousands of jobs to North Carolina after our 10 round magazine capacity law

So you're saying that trench guns will be the next to go?

well on to the SCOTUS it looks like

> feds can and will continue to regulate firearms and their ownership.
>That's quite the fucking leap to "we can't fuxx with weapons of war n shiet"
That's no leap, this is exactly what they intended.

>we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war
Every kind of weapon can be and has been a "weapon of war". That's kind of the whole fucking point of a weapon.
Whatever liberals think looks scary.

...

some weapons of war

>SCOTUS
>taking a 2A case
I wish m8

That's in direct opposition to the SCOTUS's Heller decision.

Judges who rule like that are why we need to keep and bear.

You can still own a gun you faggot just not a military style rifle with no utility other than killing people. Fucking retards here I swear

Heller v. DC wasn't that long ago

What are pistols used for?
Killing people, and in fact they kill more people than the rifles do, pistols make up for 80% of gun deaths.

8 years ago and you can bet your sweet ass they won't touch anything 2A-related for the foreseeable future

>>Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules
Well then, it's a good thing our firearm rights exist apart from the second amendment now, huh?

While I hunt and participate in competitive shooting (with ARs as well no less), on a day to day basis my main reason to have a gun is to facilitate the killing of another human should the need arise. You are a pansy faggot who can't comprehend one of our most basic Constitutionally protected rights. Sporting and hunting are secondary and tertiary to killing scumbag shit heels, you retard.

The founding fathers weren't empowering the populace against deer and clays you tremendous dick suck.

>You can still own a gun you faggot just not a military style rifle with no utility other than killing people. Fucking retards here I swear
Our firearm rights are not subject to firearm types.

>No utility other than killing people
I would love to go hunting with an AR15, but the restrictions imposed by my state are fairly arbitrary. I also enjoy target shooting as a hobby. Also . . .
>governments never turn on their people

I think the implication here is that there is no possible scenario where civilians would need to fight a hostile force, so owning a weapon that would be useful
in a firefight is threatening and dangerous.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
>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.
>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.
The SCOTUS has already ruled that if it's NOT a weapon of war it isn't protected. At the time of the ruling the justices were unaware or forgot about the military application of short-barrel shotguns. Bottom line: An AR-15 is more constitutionally protected than a Ruger 10/22 BECAUSE of the formers "weapon of war(TM)" capability. Confirmed hack leftist judges that don't even know existing law.

Mind elaborate why?

Waiting for the kikes to die so people can replace them and vote correctly.

Are you being autistic with me?

>I think the implication here is that there is no possible scenario where civilians would need to fight a hostile force
even though the purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend the citizens from the government? LOL WAT?

They've declined to hear multiple significant 2A related cases since 2008. Just recently they declined to hear anything about california and their bullshit waiting periods.

>actually reading the second amendment
I'm still amazed at the number of people that don't understand the second amendment is referencing a pre-existing natural right.

...

In Heller they also rule that weapons that are in the common use for lawful purposes shall not be infringed. There are tens of millions of AR-15s in civilian circulation in this country, all being used lawfully.

Tragedy. Its handguns that kill most people.

>Waiting for the kikes to die so people can replace them and vote correctly.
The kikes are waiting for the conservative members to die (or be put into a situation where they can be killed) and a democrat president who'd elect another anti-White Jew.

>Tragedy. Its handguns that kill most people.
I guess it's just too bad then that our firearm rights aren't subject to firearm deaths, huh?

McDonald v. Chicago was 2010.

...

fuck those pussy ass motherfuckers.

but you, user, are very well articulated. i like you.

>I'm still amazed at the number of people that don't understand the second amendment is referencing a pre-existing natural right.
They are told that rights come from government and that the government is allowed to do whatever it wants on a daily basis.

They're brainwashed to never think that their rights are granted by God (or nature if one doesn't like God) and therefore cannot be taken away by man.

Someone hang this judge

Do liberals like seriously think that the 2nd amendment is for hunting or something?

Those aren't assault weapons.
They are rifles.
Weasel words don't work when someone's going to blow your head off for trying to unconstitutionally take their rifle.

>Militias can't have weapons of war

They still haven't touched a case in almost a decade m8. Mcdonald was the lesser of the two and it was a given.

Why did they decline to hear Friedman v. Highland which was essentially an exact replica of the circumstances of the heller case?

HANG EM ALL.

>Do liberals like seriously think that the 2nd amendment is for hunting or something?
They believe the 2nd amendment is to give the state access to firearms back when the bill of rights was written.

They literally do not believe that the people of this country have the right to own a single firearm of any type.

What happens if you buy an AR15 elsewhere and then move to Maryland?

Assault weapons are already illegal for Americans to possess.
Those ARs just look similar to assault weapons because the same company (Armorlite) make the civilian and the military versions.
They are different in many ways.

Control the language of the argument and eventually you control the very idea of the argument itself. Jew 101 my friend. You don't have to be right just never stop lying and jewing your host Nation.

These judges are tyrannical rogue officials drunk upon power and the absolutism of their supremacy. All of these anti-constitutional judges should be culled, their rights denied and their liberties cancelled. They believe themselves to be the overlords of the citizenry- they are gods whose words can vanquish others rights at their command. Each of them needs to be stripped from power and cleansed.

The only natural right is "might makes right."

Everything else is a man-made extension of natural law that has been created from words, and can thus also be destroyed by words.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance against the unending efforts of tyrants to destroy it.

>Assault weapons are already illegal for Americans to possess.
Actually we have the right to own "assault" weapons.

The government illegally and unconstitutionally stripped us of that right and we have yet to take that right back.

That's the obvious conclusion and their obvious intent.
Open conflict... how long I wonder?
Thing is we are strong, they are weak. And a more broad conflict would ensue not limited to the US if it does get to that.

who the fuck owning a gun would move to maryland? they said "FUCK YOUR 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS, BITCH", so fuck them. bullshit!#^

>The only natural right is "might makes right."
If we're talking Natural Rights and not God Given Rights, that's correct.

...

I agree completely. The intent of the second amendment is clearly defined.

Assault weapons don't exist.

More to the point, the AR 15 is the most common rifle used by civillian police agencies. The case that it shouldn't be on the streets falls flat when you're putting it in the trunk of every police cruiser in the LAPD.

>Assault weapons not protected by the second amendment
What IS an assault weapon exactly?

>Open conflict... how long I wonder?
One could argue we're already at war yet only one side is doing the killing.

But if they try to confiscate (ex: door to door raids) you'll see the civil war kick off quick. Though the government knows that so when they ban our firearms they'll do it in such a way that leaves our firearms in our hands but essentially leaves them to rust under our beds.


Regardless...what good is having these firearms and these firearm rights if we don't actually use them against our real enemies who are trying to destroy us?

They mean assault rifles which do exist and are defined.

Where I live the Forest Service uses AR15’s with OD Green furniture.

>Assault weapons
No such thing. An assault rifle has a clear definition: select fire, intermediate power cartridge, detachable mag. Stoner invented the AR15 at armalite, but an AR15 pattern rifle can be made by anyone. The military version is designated m16/m4 (carbine) in the US.

>Feb. 27

>we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,

>muskets
>mausers
>enfields
>henry lever action
>garand
>mosin

Do they even know what words mean? Related, how do they define an assault weapon?

>I agree completely. The intent of the second amendment is clearly defined.
Which of course is why gungrabbers say the bill of rights is a "living document up for interpretation"

So are we at war with law enforcement? Are they at war with the citizenry? Because they have them.

This is getting out of control.
And I lived al through the 90s semi auto ban. This is much much worse.
Its looking like they want an all out ban on semi autos. Be it, rifle or pistol.
Dark times ahead if the democrats win back the house or senate in november.

assault weapon is a broad term but usually means full auto. full auto weapons have been banned in the US for many years.
when will they just say full-auto or semi-auto like everyone else?

NOT

CUNT

>guns must be restricted to the use of "the militia" only
>the militia, intended for use in war, can't be allowed "weapons of war"

?????????????????????????????????

>2025
>US citizens still have the right to bear arms
>as long as their weapons are not black
>because black guns are scary
Please let this be the timeline I'm living in

any semi auto in 223 can be used to hunt game as large as deer.

>Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war

BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS FOR YOU FUCKING LIBERAL SHITHEADS!!!!!!!!!

The only reason I own guns is to protect myself from "military style" police and government agencies.

>This is getting out of control.
>And I lived al through the 90s semi auto ban. This is much much worse.
>Its looking like they want an all out ban on semi autos. Be it, rifle or pistol.
>Dark times ahead if the democrats win back the house or senate in november.
The gungrabbers don't even need political power.

They just need the right series of judges to declare the second amendment null and void when there is enough willpower thanks to a false flag event.

What makes an Assault Rifle 15 any different than a regular hunting rifle?

well good thing assault weapons are illegal

This. This decision will be overturned if it goes to the Supreme Court and there will be much REEEEEEEEEEEEing from libs who don't understand how the law works.

at first they ban "Assault weapons" then comes the "assault cartridge" ban.

That’s fake wh*te history, dumb French cracker. The American revolution was faught by BLACK men against the wh*te British empire. BLACK AFRIKANS had already developed helicopters, machine gun, and nuclear bombs. The wh*te subhuman cave dwellers had only invented muskets.

what does it matter? It's not like they know anything about hunting either.

don't play that fucking game. nobody wins that stupid fucking game.

It's only a matter of time desu. I hope when they do get shot it's with a musket. These people are traitors and retarded.

>assault weapon
They mean assault rifles
An assault rifle has a select fire mechanism so you can fire on semi auto (like the ones on sale to the public) or in bursts of a set number of shots per pull of the trigger or full auto where the weapon fires as long as the trigger is depressed. Civilian weapons cannot by law have burst or full auto capability or they are by definition an assault rifle and are already illegal to hold.
Military assault rifles also use a different round to the civilian version.
As some guy just pointed out constitutionally Americans should be able to possess assault rifles. The idea of limiting which firearms they can hold runs counter to the explicit reason given for them to be able to possess a firearm in the first place, which is to maintain liberty, as described in their constitution,