EspressoBuzz Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-guns-idUSKBN1610JY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steuben Jerry Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Bummer! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 It really make you wonder how our appeals court system operates under the law. Some appeals courts, find bans on commonly owned AR type rifles are constitutional and some appeals courts find they are unconstitutional. Are these courts all reading the same US Constitution? They are, but some believe it's open to interpretation and some believe only strict constitutional reading, meaning what the founders had in mind at the time, applies. I believe any judge that thinks they can imply what the founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, should be impeached for violating their oath to uphold it. There is a huge amount of historical documentation from that period that expands on the intentions of all of the founders regarding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that there is no question about their intentions when they wrote it. Arms that are in common usage are completely protected under the 2nd Amendment and every sitting judge knows it. Any decision banning them has political motivation, and any judge ruling that way does too. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philoshop Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 A clear case of judicial activism, judicial legislation, and judicial overreach. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 The 3 judge panel of this same appeals court found the law to be unconstitutional. Then the rest of the judges on this court decided to re-hear the case and they decided it wasn't. Do the judges on this appeals court all have law degrees or do some of them not understand the law? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 I wanted to go into great detail here, so we all know what is really going on. In its ruling, the Fourth Circuit Court referenced District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court declared weapons that could be classified as "dangerous and unusual" do not fall under the protections of the Second Amendment. In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that fully automatic weapons fall outside the purview of the Second Amendment — or at least these firearms and magazines can be heavily regulated without running afoul of the Constitution. Never mind that the Armed Forces have never issued AR-15s. For SCOTUS, the concern was primarily the function, not the form. The justices weighed it based on the type of firing system — semi-auto vs. fully automatic. The Fourth Circuit Courts deliberately conflated this distinction. If it looks like a military grade weapon, then it must be one, seems to have been the "logic" employed by the erudite Fourth Circuit judges. The Maryland law also bans folding stocks, flash suppressors and grenade/flare launchers — items that may make a rifle look menacing but do not make it functionally any more dangerous or unusual. Besides, if semiautomatic rifles are "unusual," then I don't know what constitutes "usual." The AR-15 is the most popular rifle type in America. Judge William Traxler wrote in his blistering dissent, "The majority has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms." They did this by inventing a new test: whether a weapon is "most useful in military service." I hope this case makes it to the Supreme Court so the justices can finish what they started with Heller — that is, protect the Second Amendment. Until then, Maryland can trample constitutional freedom, and appellate courts will be left to defiantly dismantle Heller one ruling at a time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philoshop Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 It just won't do to have citizens capable of opposing the whims of their government. That's been the downfall of Socialism across the globe. Do you not see that, man? Are you blind, man? C'mon over to my place tonight where we'll sit around a cow-dung fire eating algae cakes while we pick parasites off each other and discuss the future of a Guatemalan water snake, man. /sarc off/ ;-} 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 "Weapons of War"….Pump shotguns, semi auto pistols, bolt action rifles and knives are used in war. Who gets to write the definitions??? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtTime Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 1 hour ago, ants said: "Weapons of War"….Pump shotguns, semi auto pistols, bolt action rifles and knives are used in war. Who gets to write the definitions??? Don't forget air planes and vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 The anti's don't understand what a weapon is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.