Federal judge upholds strict new Maryland gun laws

[kludge]

Stupid liberal logic. So let's see... Before Heller, they say individuals don't have the right to keep and bear arms outside of a militia/military context. After Heller, you can't keep and bear arms because they are weapons of war. Which is it? Whichever argument is convenient? You can't have it both ways. Incidentally, Miller was remanded because there was no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was ever used in the military, and that was the criteria used as to whether it was protected under the Second Amendment. Looking at this case through the eyes of Miller, weapons of war must be protected, so this case cannot stand. Using The same liberal logic applied here, not only sawed-off shotguns but full-auto and select-fire machine guns as "weapons of war" are protected via Miller and the 1986 ban is unconstitutional. They just opened Pandora's box.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Court upholds Maryland's irrational, feel-good gun law | Washington Examiner

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Then there's the specter of this possibly lurking out there....

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...ve-order-designating-rifles-militia-purposes/

 

[cbhausen]

Then there's the specter of this possibly lurking out there....

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...ve-order-designating-rifles-militia-purposes/

Why the use of the word "spectre"? Would an EO from Trump declaring military-type rifles as "Militia" rifles thus nullifying some sates' restrictions on their ownership and use not be a good thing?

 

[T.Lex]

Why the use of the word "spectre"? Would an EO from Trump declaring military-type rifles as "Militia" rifles thus nullifying some sates' restrictions on their ownership and use not be a good thing?

At the risk of introducing some temperance into this discussion, whether such an EO would automagically nullify the problematic state and local regulations is something that would require significant litigation.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Why the use of the word "spectre"? Would an EO from Trump declaring military-type rifles as "Militia" rifles thus nullifying some sates' restrictions on their ownership and use not be a good thing?

My biggest problem is that he's not declaring military-type rifles as "Militia" rifles. He's declaring only certain arms as militia arms. That's almost as bad as trying to define which firearms need to be banned.

 

[KG1]

At the risk of introducing some temperance into this discussion, whether such an EO would automagically nullify the problematic state and local regulations is something that would require significant litigation.

Seems like everything requires significant litigation anymore.

 

[Floivanus]

My biggest problem is that he's not declaring military-type rifles as "Militia" rifles. He's declaring only certain arms as militia arms. That's almost as bad as trying to define which firearms need to be banned.

I must agree, a Cetme, mp5 or AKM would more than adequately fill the role of 'militia arms' to me and not to speak of the fact that a militia would be at a disadvantage without select fire capabilities, to define millitary style weapons as militia arms, but not give access to millitary capability is short changing us still.

 

[KG1]

Posted this in the other thread as well. The author of this article gets it. Very well reasoned.

Federal Judges Trample 'Militia' Aspect of 2nd Amendment

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Supreme Court Asked to Review Maryland's Gun Ban

 

[gregr]

Does "shall not be infringed" not mean shall not be infringed?


So, what is the opinion of folks here regarding background check requirements? Requirements for a LTCH in order to carry a handgun? Fingerprinting in order to get a LTCH? Etc etc etc?

Constitutional carry is the only really legal carry. We have no need, per the Constitution, to have a permission slip from the state. And yes, shall not be infringed, means exactly that...

 

[jve153]

it saddens me to know the the region that liberty was born, is likely where it is most likely to die.

 

[PhxCollier]

i am suprised that the Supreme Court won’t hear this
SCOTUS Guts 2nd Amend. By Refusing To Hear Semi-Auto Ban Case

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, that's odd, since it reflects a split.

Maybe they're waiting to see if the majority (that semiauto are protected) takes hold. Right now, it looks like the 4th Circuit decision is the anomaly.

 

[jamil]

i am suprised that the Supreme Court won’t hear this
SCOTUS Guts 2nd Amend. By Refusing To Hear Semi-Auto Ban Case

"AR47".

Twice.

 

[Hop]

So what's one to do when a lower court like the 4th ignores previous SCOTUS rulings and the current SCOTUS refuses to take up a case?

 

[T.Lex]

So what's one to do when a lower court like the 4th ignores previous SCOTUS rulings and the current SCOTUS refuses to take up a case?

Be happy that we're in the 7th Circuit?

More seriously, nothing, really. Except look for a new test case in the 4th to take up.

 

[HubertGummer]

(((Circuit held that the AR-15 and the semiautomatic AR47 (and other banned semi-automatic rifles) are “not constitutionally protected arms” because they are “weapons that are most useful in military service.” )))

Curious, weren't muskets considered "weapons most useful in military" back in 1776?

 

[Leadeye]

Maryland surrounds dc.

That was easy.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

(((Circuit held that the AR-15 and the semiautomatic AR47 (and other banned semi-automatic rifles) are “not constitutionally protected arms” because they are “weapons that are most useful in military service.” )))

Curious, weren't muskets considered "weapons most useful in military" back in 1776?

Using this line of logic, how can internet porn be protected by the 1st A?