Home News Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban of 'Assault Weapons'

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban of ‘Assault Weapons’

February 22, 2017 at 6:55 am 80 News
Share!

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — 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.”

“It’s a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it’s en-banc and for the strength of its decision,” Frosh said, noting that all of the court’s judges participated.

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.

“For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland’s law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand,” Traxler wrote.

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said, “It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected ‘arm’ under the Second Amendment.” She added that the majority opinion “clearly ignores the Supreme Court’s guidance from District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are ‘in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.'”

The NRA estimates there are 5 million to 10 million AR-15s – one of the weapons banned under Maryland’s law – in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes. Asked about an appeal, Baker said the NRA is exploring all options.

But Elizabeth Banach, executive director of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, said the decision is “overwhelming proof that reasonable measures to prevent gun violence are constitutional.”

“Maryland’s law needs to become a national model of evidence-based policies that will reduce gun violence,” Banach wrote in a statement.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake upheld the ban in 2015, but a divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that she didn’t apply the proper legal standard. The panel sent the case back to Blake and ordered her to apply “strict scrutiny,” a more rigorous test of a law’s constitutionality. The state appealed to the full appeals court.

Maryland passed the sweeping gun-control measure after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre that killed 20 children and six educators in Connecticut. King mentioned the massacre at the start of the ruling.

“Both before and after Newtown, similar military-style rifles and detachable magazines have been used to perpetrate mass shootings in places whose names have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there,” King wrote. He listed the 2012 shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; the December 2015 shootings in San Bernardino, California; and the shootings last year at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, where 49 people were killed and 53 injured.

King also noted that enacting the law is “precisely the type of judgment that legislatures are allowed to make without second-guessing by a court.”

“Simply put, the State has shown all that is required: a reasonable, if not perfect, fit between the (Firearms Safety Act) and Maryland’s interest in protecting public safety,” King wrote.

© 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

—-

This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.

VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
Rating: 3.3/10 (9 votes cast)

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban of ‘Assault Weapons’, 3.3 out of 10 based on 9 ratings

Print Friendly
Share!


Please leave a comment below.


80 Comments

  1. inluminatuo February 22, 2017 at 8:09 am

    “overwhelming proof that reasonable measures to prevent gun violence are constitutional.” What? Not all gun violence is bad, only that which attacks, never that which defends, defense being something that our current Liberal biased controlling courts seek to take away from SELF-governing Americans whose homes and lives are threatened by the very NON-Self-Governing people that the Liberals themselves create in dependency. The average 911 call takes about 25 minutes to respond to,,,,a 45 Caliber bullet travels at about 800-1200 ft per second.
    Maybe if they stopped calling them assault rifles, but DEFENSE weapons the media propaganda would not sink in.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 4.9/5 (17 votes cast)
    • Radman February 22, 2017 at 9:17 am

      Regarding your last sentence, don’t count on the leftist media ever changing their “tune.”

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (11 votes cast)
    • attila320 February 22, 2017 at 10:52 am

      Where there is a will there is a way. Simply have a straw man purchase the weapon OR use a fake ID from another state….illegal you say???? When it comes to self and family defense an otherwise law abiding citizen must use any means necessary to secure the proper firepower to do the job.

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 4.9/5 (9 votes cast)
    • EdWatts February 22, 2017 at 11:45 am

      attila:

      Should that “otherwise law-abiding” citizen ever be forced to use that weapon in self-defense, he will probably wish that he was killed by the goblin.

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 1.5/5 (2 votes cast)
    • ltuser
      ltuser February 22, 2017 at 5:06 pm

      And since Chi=raq has some of the STRONGEST gun laws around in the US, and it has not only done NOTHING to reign in the crime, that should tell ANYONE with two brain cells, that GUN LAWS are not the issue..

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • pm5200 February 23, 2017 at 9:47 am

      Don’t know why they call them ‘Assault Weapons’ that just makes it worse. People have a right to defend one’s self, they are just rifles, a hand gun will do the same thing at close range.

      Makes no sense too me.

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • Firewagon February 23, 2017 at 12:16 pm

      pm5200: Last I checked, an assault weapon is anything used in any “assault” – bat, club, knife, car, even, God Forbid, a GUN!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • ltuser
      ltuser February 23, 2017 at 4:16 pm

      Heck there used to supposedly be a law, that when someone achieved Black belt in certain martial arts, they had to register THEMSELVES as a deadly weapon, so if THEY ‘assaulted someone, it wouldn’t just be simple assault, it would be assault “with a deadly weapon.. basically meaning THEM…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  2. baitfish February 22, 2017 at 8:16 am

    judge robert king wrote, “put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to weapons of war.” Spoken like a true liberal loony left, America hating, communist. What’s next? Swords, knives, archery equipment, clubs, rocks? All documented “weapons of war.” When will these dictators in black robes be held accountable for their malfeasance?

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (14 votes cast)
    • inluminatuo February 22, 2017 at 9:21 am

      The snapperhead Obamanites actually made our Border agents use bean bag launchers to defend our borders from Fast and furious drug Lord issued fully automatics rifles. This is how dictatorships begin, not that specious McCain comment on freedom to abuse the Press. First National SOCIALIST Workers Party Hitler promised free medical coverage, then he took away all the private guns from German citizens, then 30 million men turned sheep disappeared from the planet, having the wool pulled over their eyes by the same strain of fools who think they know better about human nature, than mother nature,,,and worship the brotherhood of fallible men instead of fatherhood of an infallible CREATOR. Ah yes the French Revolution, Liberty Equality FRATERNITY,,,,all they got was an Emperor who crowned himself, preceded by the guillotine.

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 4.9/5 (7 votes cast)
    • 440volt February 22, 2017 at 11:52 am

      I have read the wording of the Second Amendment over and over. NOWHERE ins there any mention of an exception for any type of weapon, regardless of it’s intended use. I don’t care how many “creative” or “common sense” misinterpretations of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms sheep herd comes up with, the wording, and intent are clear. Shall Not be Infringed!

      MOLON LABE BEOTCHES

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)
    • spaceswimmer February 22, 2017 at 2:02 pm

      440, not only that, but when looking at every other portion of the constitution, including all the amendments, the 2nd is the ONLY amendment which has NO limitation. The 1st and all others are limited in the wording to specific portions of our governments, usually “Congress shall make no law…”

      The 2nd specifically prevents ANY branch of government, at any level, from restricting it. It is specifically there to guarantee that citizens have FULL access to “weapons of war”, as a way of waging war against the federal government. Even the restriction the liberals read into the 2nd amendment based on the “A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state,” intro, is a specifically worded statement that the ability to wage war against the federal government is the intent of this amendment.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • ltuser
      ltuser February 22, 2017 at 5:11 pm

      And IMO that is why libs are so harsh against the 2nd amendment. THEY DON’T want any reigns in n the federal government.. WELL as long as they are the ones in power…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • drillbeast February 22, 2017 at 6:07 pm

      In 1776 muskets and Kentucky long rifles were weapons of war.
      Any judge calling any firearm “not guaranteed by the Second Amendment” is dismissive of the Constitution. Any such judge is unfit to be an arbiter of natural God given laws.
      To site Sandy Hook Elementary as a reason to restrict “right to bare arms” would be supportive of those rights had someone used an “assault” weapon to stop the murderer who perpetrated that crime, instead of prohibiting the possession of any fire arm on campus.
      These are NOT “gun free zones”, they are Free Kill Zones.

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  3. backpacker February 22, 2017 at 8:45 am

    The liberal trash justices once again ignoring and destroying our constitution.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (16 votes cast)
  4. aj44pct February 22, 2017 at 9:14 am

    Why wasn’t the Rodney King riots in LA used as an example why these types of self defense weapons are used for lawful purpose? When there were no police presence, it was the lawful citizens that possessed these weapons to protect their lives and property.
    In Baltimore, store owners were NOT permitted to protect their lives and property as police were ordered to STAND DOWN!!!
    Same thing occurred in Crown Heights Brooklyn when Moron Dinkins ordered police to STAND DOWN.
    Police have NO DUTY to protect individuals unless there is a specific contract made. So in natural disasters and riots or when police cannot or will not respond to calls for HELP…..its the armed citizen(s) right to protect themselves with whatever means that is at their disposal.
    Just remember….CUOMO in NY did the same damn thing.
    Don’t vote for democrats!!

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)
    • ltuser
      ltuser February 22, 2017 at 5:15 pm

      Don’t forget all those ‘needy’ folk in New Orleans who SHOT RESCUERS after Katrina.. IMO cops there should have been ordered to SHOOT TO KILL those people…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  5. patrick55 February 22, 2017 at 9:27 am

    just how do they even figure that modern sporting rifles are weapons of war?this is a liberal lie.it is based upon looking like it’s counterparts which are weapons of war and get this part are select fire weapons.the common AR15 is NOT select fire and regulated by the federal government already.I there for call out the so called justices and point out by not knowing the differences makes them unfit to judge this case and not stepping down proves my point.IDIOTS!Learn about what you talk about or step down.This is ripe for appeal as they did not know anything about what they high handed decided all on their own with no basis in facts.Stupid is as stupid does and they just proved that with this junk claim.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
    • tremors1 February 22, 2017 at 11:37 am

      Patrick, while you are correct that the common AR-15 is not a “weapon of war”, that point is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment was included to give the citizens the right to keep weapons of war. At the time, it was the common musket.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • spaceswimmer February 22, 2017 at 3:44 pm

      Tremors: up to the civil war, it was not unusual for individuals to put together companies or even battalions, including artillery. It is only after the socialists started getting into power during WWI that there was any limitation on citizens regarding weapons of war.

      Post CW, Gatling guns were expensive, but still available to private citizens. And “weapons of war”, including tanks, grenades, and fully automatic weapons, are presently available to a subset of non-citizen individuals called corporations. For that matter, police (though not sheriffs) are employed by corporations (cities). How can police swat teams have fully automatic weapons, but not law abiding civilians?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 4.5/5 (2 votes cast)
  6. Lewis Williams February 22, 2017 at 9:31 am

    Any soldier using one of these in war would die very quickly, real assault rifles are fully automatic, these are not. Stupid liberal judges

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 4.9/5 (8 votes cast)
    • Firewagon February 22, 2017 at 12:42 pm

      Not so quick, me buckaroo. WWII was fought with many ‘automatic’ weapons; however, the “mud slogging doughboy” was primarily armed with the venerable M1 rifle – a “semi-automatic” eight shooter, referred to by General George Patton as “The greatest battle implement ever devised.”

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 4.5/5 (2 votes cast)
  7. woftam February 22, 2017 at 9:34 am

    So there are 5 to 10 million AR 15 style weapons in the USA.

    Judge King in his Opinion refers to:
    Sandy Hook .. committed by a nut case. Weapon bought by a fruit cake mom for a Nut case son.
    Aurora CO. Theater .. committed by a nut case.
    San Bernardino .. committed by Terrorist husband and wife , not VETTED before entry allowed in USA
    Orlando Plus Night Club.. Terrorist.

    So now the law is changed and were all safe, in our homes, theaters, night clubs, etc.haha

    I guess if it goes this way, I sure hope the States like Maryland will build a nice jail to house all the non violent gun owners who will be jailed for simply owning a semi Auto rifle. It would be racial to house them in the same prison with Terrorist, Murders, gang members, child molesters, etc.

    Can you imagine this conversation. Gang Member ask New arrival at prison, What you in far homey?? I had a AR 15, Oh Where did you steal it?? I didn’t I bought it at a gun store. So you bout a AR 15 at a gun store and they sent you to jail???
    Homey you must be real stupid or a snitch.

    Looks like we will need a lot more jail space in the future.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 4.8/5 (5 votes cast)
    • ltuser
      ltuser February 22, 2017 at 5:21 pm

      And not ONE of those horrific crimes would have been stopped by yet ANOTHER gun law.. AND THAT IS something liberals like this will NEVER understand.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  8. ontheright February 22, 2017 at 9:35 am

    “…similar military-style rifles and detachable magazines have been used to perpetrate mass shootings…”

    And yet there are millions upon millions of ‘scary black guns’ that haven’t to date, nor will ever be used in any mass shootings. Period. Other than maybe paper targets at the shooting range.

    It’s so easy to ‘debunk’ the lieberal/progressive/socialist/democrat’s faux outrage and to identify their ulterior motive(s).

    For example (only using unvetted numbers provided in this article) – applying only the low end of the ‘scary black gun’ ownership number (5 million) and the number of ‘scary black guns’ (4) used by criminals while committing the henious crimes listed in the article, the percentage of ‘scary black guns’ used to commit these crimes (by criminals, or the mentally unstable – not mutally exclusive) is 0.0000008. Obviously the numbers are higher, but that’s for a much larger research project. For the sake of the ‘lieberals’ argument, there were 10,000 deaths by ‘scary black guns’ (even one is too many) that would be 0.002 percent of ‘scary black guns’ used (by criminals) to commit henious crimes. More people die falling off ladders, or car accidents, and/or even medical malpractice.

    Moral of the story – this is not about the guns, but all about the control. Today, 5 million (likely double that number) ‘scary black guns’ were NOT used by any non-criminals, in ANY crimes, at all.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
    • ltuser
      ltuser February 22, 2017 at 5:26 pm

      And how many people have died from criminals shooting them with REVOLVERS and 9mm pistols?? PLENTY!

      Heck, i would LOVE to see crime stats listing Gun type ABCDE, vs Crime ABCDE… JUST TO see which type of gun IS the worst offender…

      BUT even if those statistics existed, i doubt it would change a single libtards mind..

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  9. Radman February 22, 2017 at 9:52 am

    Let’s see. what’s that oath about protecting the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic? By their actions, those 10 judges have proven themselves to be ignorant enemies of the Constitution’s INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes.

    “We the People” have the right to defend ourselves against attacks, even those from government: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 4.4/5 (7 votes cast)
  10. CaptTurbo . February 22, 2017 at 9:53 am

    These judges should be recalled. The Second Amendment is exactly about weapons of war. What else would be used against tyranny? un-American morons! It’s not the weapons used in mass shootings that should be noted but rather that they have been committed by liberals and or Muslim liberals.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
    • pm5200 February 23, 2017 at 9:48 am

      I agree you are correct, thanks.!!!!!!!!!!!

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  11. ajmanzo February 22, 2017 at 10:11 am

    If the pinheads would let some intelligent American explain the second amendment to them just by some miracle they might realize how dumb,stupid, ignorant and all the other words in the dictionary describing them. No. one stupid all the guns available at that time were used in the revolution. No way stupid could they mean something that did not exist at that time. And no. two if you understand the time period when it was written you would realize it was meant so that WE could PROTECT ourselves from YOU. Please read it again and again and again you might just begin to understand it. You preach equality, level playing field, well you have these weapons so how can we in fairness fight you to preserve our freedom if you outgun us. Question HOW did YOU ever become a JUDGE ?????????

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  12. Gary February 22, 2017 at 10:22 am

    To argue for self defense using the 2nd amendment is absurd!

    “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.”

    The clear intent of the second amendment is “being necessary to the security of a free State” , or, said differently “to defend against a tyrannical government“! Self defense and hunting are merely “riders” to the intent.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 4.8/5 (5 votes cast)
    • Lewis Williams February 22, 2017 at 10:45 am

      your two bolded statements do not equate, there are other reasons to protect the free state than a tyrannical government and you missed the key part “shall not be infringed”, it says nothing about except for certain guns that look similar to other guns.

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Gary February 22, 2017 at 1:13 pm

      @Lewis-
      As annunciated where? I do not dispute your point, but please keep in mind the circumstances that were prevalent when the 2nd amendment was written. It was written with perspective of the recent tyrannical government headed by King George was chief. A brief study of circa 1775 history would reveal an attempt to disarm the colonies.

      To your implication that I intentionally left out “shall not be infringed”, let me take your comment one step further. Bearing arms isn’t just a right, it is a responsibility of every American, no matter the weapon. Further, the firearms owned by early Americans were state of the art for that period. Therefore, there is no reason to assume Americans today would choose to bear antiquated arms.

      Does that provide you enough clarification to get your nickers out of a twist?

      For validation of my position, I am a Vet and am currently a member of Oath Keepers.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Silent Hammer February 22, 2017 at 1:49 pm

      Gary, The Framers were not so removed from England that they couldn’t remember from their history the threat of the Ottoman Caliphate in the 14th Century? Second, what do you think, “…the right of the people… shall not be infringed…” means, and Third, When the Framers thought and thought about the Constitution, “weapons of war” were evolving year by year. They knew that weapons would continue to be improved, to be more accurate, more lethal and simpler to use? These were extremely brilliant humans, who learned from the past (Anglicanism, Islam, Tyranny) and said NO to the possibility that this country would suffer the same grievances. As I posted earlier, “It’s not the Gun that kills, it’s the Person”. I’m sure you’re horrified by the thought of actually shooting and perhaps kill with a gun. But the more populated and liberal we become as a nation, that possibility rises. And depending on your living location, it may well become a probability. The most dangerous cities in the Western World are those which ban firearms most vehemently. Discipline is the key. If a person or group want to violate my person or property, and I PUNISH them commensurate with the attack, learning WILL take place. If that attack includes lethal force , then lethal force will be returned. The LAW requires certain things from certain persons to own and carry a weapon. So be it. Those legal owners abide by those laws, and are “well regulated” by such.

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 4.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Gary February 22, 2017 at 2:17 pm

      @Silent Hammer
      Please see my preceding comment to Lewis.

      I believe the intent was not just a right, but a responsibility for the reasons you stated.

      Lethal force is always an undesirable last option.

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 4.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  13. Gary M February 22, 2017 at 10:24 am

    The insanity and ignorance of uneducated judges has got to stop. I think lawyers need to quiz judges as to their understanding of firearms when arguing their cases. Liberal judges are a lost cause to begin with and in theory, they should recuse themselves for bias. Calling semi-automatic rifles “weapons of war” just because they look like the real deal, ie fully auto weapons, is absurd. Let’s face it, their goal is to take guns away and they will use any and all excuses to accomplish just that.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  14. gary365 February 22, 2017 at 10:31 am

    My legal opinion is a little different. Since the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to effectively resist a tyrannical government, I believe every citizen in entitled to own any weapon the government can own. Period.

    There are some weapons I cant afford, so I can’t own them unless I join together with others to increase our purchasing power, but we should not be flatly prohibited from owing, say, nukes!!

    Gary XXXXX, JD, PhD

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • EdWatts February 22, 2017 at 12:05 pm

      I agree with you completely! One Minuteman III ICBM with one 475 kT W87 warhead cost the government about $7,000,000. The expenses for the launch and support equipment and maintenance would be substantial; but, as you can see, it would be possible for the very wealthy to own their own nuclear “arms”…

      …If the government would allow it.

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Gary M February 22, 2017 at 4:04 pm

      In theory, you are correct, but being realistic, owning nukes would be problematic and self defeating. Going back to the Clinton years, he had military people fill out a survey, supposedly anonymous, that asked, if ordered by the C.I.C. would you fire upon US citizens. What Billy boy did with the survey is unknown, however it was rumored and rather intently, that BHO either used the results of that survey as an outline for what if? Or actually ran a new one and he used the results to pick who his “loyal” generals and other flag officers were. It was generally understood that any military person who disagreed with Obama was one way or another removed from that position, thus creating a small circle of military people who would indeed fire upon the populace. Was Obama planning something or just being paranoid?

      I take great comfort in having confidence that our current POTUS, will defend the people and that our current military will as well. It’s just a feeling, but a comfort none-the-less.

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 4.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • spaceswimmer February 22, 2017 at 4:51 pm

      Gary, I would be ok with true “common sense” limitation on weapons of mass destruction, including only Nuclear, biological, and chemical, since I don’t consider those weapons of war, just of terror. Since use of these weapons would prevent the use of the equipment and land it was used on, the likelihood of use on the citizenry is limited. Use of those items, even used properly, would result in the interference of other law abiding citizens of their rights (property, life), whereas proper use of any fire arm, or even of artillery, could be limited to defending oneself against those intending to deprive oneself of those same rights.

      On the other hand, limitations on anti-ballistic missiles, and other forms of artillery, including conventional missiles, is clearly unconstitutional. Also, limitations on any defensive measure (CBW suits, flak jackets) by law abiding citizens is a clear indication that the government is intent on tyranny!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 4.5/5 (2 votes cast)
    • ltuser
      ltuser February 22, 2017 at 5:33 pm

      [My legal opinion is a little different. Since the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to effectively resist a tyrannical government, I believe every citizen in entitled to own any weapon the government can own. Period.]

      Gary, while i agree that was the Intent, i doubt the framers anticipated things like B-52s, r other planes able t carry mass quantities of bombs and missiles.. SO i do think there should be SOME sort of limitation in regards to what joe citizen can own. HOWEVER< things like your own M-2 barret, or Ma deus, or M1 Abrams.. GO FOR IT!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  15. jlucas45 February 22, 2017 at 10:37 am

    I am very relieved that the terrorists, criminals, and thugs are going to turn in all of their semi-auto rifles and high capacity magazines…whew. The Maryland court made this decision just in time. I’m sure there are many many disappointed terrorists out there who can no longer use their semi-auto weapons to kill as many people as they can. But, hey, on the high side, there are fewer people who can defend themselves against them because the law-abiding turned in their semi-automatic rifles, so the criminals, thugs and terrorists can feel good about their future because the Maryland courts have made their state a nice “soft target”.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
    • Radman February 22, 2017 at 11:58 am

      We need to issue a national travel alert warning for people considering a trip to Maryland…or actually moving there. It’s will be a more dangerous place as a result of this inane ruling.

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
    • ltuser
      ltuser February 22, 2017 at 5:37 pm

      I would laugh if cause of this, LIFE insurance rates SKYROCKET for people in Maryland… Or as i call it, FAIRYLAND!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  16. southernpatriot February 22, 2017 at 10:39 am

    The weapons that the State of Maryland declares as “assault” weapons are not. This is normal with demented Democrats and their sycophant partners, the media. Snowflake judges can be depended upon to interpret the Second Amendment without a constructionist viewpoint.

    I am glad for many reasons that I do not live in Maryland with D.C. and Baltimore determining there views on everything.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 4.8/5 (5 votes cast)
  17. Stuart Miller February 22, 2017 at 10:45 am

    There is no distinction regarding “types of arms” in the 2nd Amendment. This a shocking whittling away at the Constitution. It is important to note that the Federalist Papers outline the discussions surrounding the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights and one of the considerations is for free men to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

    This ruling states that the government may have superior weapons than its master (the people) which obviates the ability of the people to defend themselves against their servants (the government) who might become tyrannical and rise up against “We the People.”

    The Communist-Leftist (which Maryland seems to be) argument that the right to keep and bear arms references only the military, is absurd on the face — at least it was absurd until Comrade Obama banned the military from carrying guns, which then allowed Radical Islamicists to attack our military bases. Of course the radical Muslims don’t believe in our laws so they will have assault weapons (even though the banned weapons are not assault weapons) while honest Americans are left helpless and defenseless.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  18. patron71 February 22, 2017 at 10:46 am

    Maybe the dumb a*s’s who put Obamass in office for 8 years, will realize that he wanted to disarm the honest people. An easy way was to put every liberal in as a judge who would try to ban all guns. He just wanted to be King!

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
  19. hawkishguy February 22, 2017 at 10:50 am

    You liberals are right! I just saw a copy of the Constitution, and was surprised to see that right after the phrase, “shall not be infringed,” a new clause had been added saying, “unless liberals believe gun control makes common sense.” After all, the Founding Fathers could not possibly have known that guns kill people, or that gun technology would continue to improve over the centuries. Having successfully ignored the meaning of the Second Amendment, we now need to whittle away the First Amendment protections for politically incorrect speech.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • ltuser
      ltuser February 22, 2017 at 5:41 pm

      Even though it was meant as tongue in cheek, liberals and common sense in the same sentence. That is one heck of an oxymoron..

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  20. paulrph1 February 22, 2017 at 11:15 am

    “Not to cover military type of weapons”. I want you to know that the guns that they used were muskets and they were the weapon of war at the time the second amendment was written. So by that reasoning muskets and anything else are to be banned form present day use. Ridiculous.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  21. lotus503 February 22, 2017 at 11:17 am

    We need to eliminate case law and get back to judicial decisions by Constitutional law, as the framers intended.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  22. tremors1 February 22, 2017 at 11:28 am

    ““Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court,”

    I have news for the judge, what the hell does he think the 2nd Amendment covered when it was included in the Constitution? The guns covered in the 2nd Amendment were the “weapons of war” of their time.

    These efeing progressive left and their liberal judges want the Constitution to be a “living” document, updated with the changing times, just not when it involves anything they don’t like.

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
    • ltuser
      ltuser February 22, 2017 at 5:44 pm

      And since both fists and feet have been used in war since time began, i guess these cretins are OK with getting their extremities chopped off!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  23. dmpilc February 22, 2017 at 11:29 am

    You must remember that the term “assault weapon” was created and defined by liberal democrats who wrote the Clinton Gun Ban bill when Bill Clinton was president. It is not the same as “assault Rifle” which is defined by the military, so by definition, an assault weapon cannot be considered a weapon of war. I also agree that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with sport shooting or hunting; it is all about citizen defense of one’s home and country. And this decision flies in the face of the Washington DC vs Heller case. I hope it does eventually get appealed to the Supreme Court, after Trump’s nominee to replace Scalia gets confirmed.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  24. Silent Hammer February 22, 2017 at 11:29 am

    “Weapons of WAR”? “Automatic”? “Assault”? The sheer IGNORANCE of the Court is astounding. Truth: Guns don’t kill people. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. If you are shot by a person with a 12 gauge, single-shot shotgun, you’re just as dead as if you were killed by one with your “Assault Weapon”. The value in any “gun-safety” law is in the character of the owner. Period. Nothing more pitiful to watch than a puffed-up “expert” who doesn’t know what he’s talking about telling those who actually DO know what they’re talking about that they DON’T. Maryland solution: Move out. Go South and West. Let the liberals get robbed, raped, car-jacked, decapitated and thieved because good citizens are no longer a threat to SCUM. ‘Nuf said!

    VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • jlucas45 February 22, 2017 at 2:14 pm

      Yeah, and these are the people who are running the country.

      VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Firewagon February 22, 2017 at 4:21 pm

      Lucas: “Running the country.” I believe you mistyped, try RUINING!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  25. chuckyb February 22, 2017 at 11:53 am

    ontheright Your last paragraph was right on point. It’s about control not guns. Most of the folks are blinded by the sheer ignorance of the statements these judges are making. These judges are very sneaky they act and say stupid things but if you look very closely you will see their hidden agenda. The destruction of America and the implementation of a One World Government. Never take for granted that it’s stupidity and not a hidden agenda that drives their actions and statements. Underestimating your enemy will get you killed or enslaved.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)

Write a Reply or Comment