Maryland Assault Weapons Ban Upheld by 4th Circuit Court

[Rucker61]

SCOTUS, here we come.

The ruling and dissent:

http://guptawessler.com/wp-content/u...nc-opinion.pdf

[TFOGGER]

WASHINGTON ― A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a Maryland ban on assault-style rifles and large-capacity magazines isn’t subject to the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, reconsidered a divided ruling issued last year that found citizens have a “fundamental right” to own these weapons, and that laws restricting the right deserve the toughest level of constitutional scrutiny.

Writing for a nine-judge majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King said that weapons such as M-16s and the kind that “are most useful in military service” aren’t protected by the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision. That ruling limited the right to ownership of handguns for self-defense within the home.

“Put simply,” King wrote, “we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”

The court separately rejected claims that Maryland’s assault weapons ban violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

[CS1983]

So no Garands then too?

[Rucker61]

So no Garands then too?

Or semi-auto pistols, repeating shotguns, bolt action rifles or replice Colt Army black powder revolvers. Dang.

[Skip]

“Put simply,” King wrote, “we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”

Miller says otherwise. Put simply, the Second Amendment doesn't have to be extended to cover weapons in common use by LE or MIL because they are implicitly covered. Denying access/ownership of such weapons is a violation of the Second Amendment.

Heller might have tried to scale this back (thanks Scalia) but I don't understand how some of the amendment can be incorporated but not all. Nothing in BoR is severable, that's the whole point of incorporation. Imagine such a thing done to any other amendment. You can't. Could a state say you are free to practice a religion but not free to speak against local government? Could a state prohibit racial discrimination but allow gender discrimination?

It's clear they are operating on feels and not the law. So no matter what, they are going to win because feels.

The whole thing needs a reset.

[Hummer]

Congress should impeach the judges and try them for treason.

[Zundfolge]

Congress should impeach the judges and try them for treason.

Congress won't do it ... its going to take an Article V Convention to clean up the mess that our courts have become.

[kidicarus13]

I am no lawyer so what does this mean to the common man/woman today?

[Skip]

I am no lawyer so what does this mean to the common man/woman today?

Neither am I...

We are allowed to own a firearm but a state/local government can restrict that right as they see fit.

This is really bad news for challenging our state mag ban. I've long wanted these bans reconciled with Miller but unless we get a USSC ruling to overturn this, it sounds like they can completely ignore it. Banning a firearm component (magazine) in common use is the same as banning the firearm itself so this would seem like a slam dunk.

[Rucker61]

I am no lawyer so what does this mean to the common man/woman today?

That if a court decides that a class of firearms is "like" an M16, the sale/transfer and perhaps possession can be prohibited. For whatever definition of "like" the majority can agree upon.