Author Topic: Federal Judge Rules AR-15s are not Protected by Second Amendment  (Read 181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,465
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them


Federal Judge Rules AR-15s are not Protected by Second Amendment


Posted 2 hours ago by Gary DeMar Filed under 2nd Amendment
 

According to a 47-page opinion by U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake, “guns that were regulated by the state of Maryland last year, including AR-15 and AK-style rifles (as well as other magazine fed, semi-auto rifles with certain features), “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms.”

If this ruling stands, it will result in legal creep. The next round of anti-Second Amendment advocates will argue that since an AR-15 does not come under the protection of the Second Amendment, all single shot weapons that hold more than a single bullet must be banned as well since an AR-15 is no more an assault rifle than a single shot rifle, because that’s what an AR-15 is.




If the ruling does stand, what will owners of AR-15s do? Nothing. They will keep their weapons because the right to “keep and bear arms” is a fundamental right, not a right given to us by government.

Charlton Heston made the point at the 2000 NRA Convention and immortalized the words “From My Cold, Dead Hands!”



Here are some of Judge Blake’s comments as reported by Dan Cannon at Guns Saves Lives.

_______________________________________

“Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.

“First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.




“The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.

“As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.

“Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.”

_________________________________________

As you can see, the judge’s operating assertion leads her down the wrong legal path: “[T]he court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right. . .”

The Second Amendment does not limit the possession of “arms” to the sole purpose of defending “the home.” The mention of a “well regulated Militia” says otherwise. The fundamental right to keep and bear arms includes everything from personal self-defense to the defense of the nation. The judge needs to take a look at Switzerland.

She may also want to take a look at what's going on in Ferguson, Missouri, where business owners who are armed have kept their shops from being burned and/or looted. "At two businesses the owners (and some employees and friends) were standing firm, right outside, ready to take on all comers. Why? Because they were armed to the teeth."

It's not surprising that gun sales are up across St. Louis. The police can't be everywhere.

Criminals are excited by Judge Blake's ruling.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/16679/federal-judge-rules-ar-15s-protected-second-amendment/#I8BYRioIsaW4fhM1.99
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,090
Re: Federal Judge Rules AR-15s are not Protected by Second Amendment
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2014, 11:55:18 AM »

It is always in every government's self-interest to rule over a disarmed populace, no matter what type of government it is...




"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"April Fools Day is the one day of the year that people critically evaluate news articles before accepting them as true." - Unknown

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,465
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: Federal Judge Rules AR-15s are not Protected by Second Amendment
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2014, 12:40:36 PM »

  “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms.”

 Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/16679/federal-judge-rules-ar-15s-protected-second-amendment/#I8BYRioIsaW4fhM1.99


I just checked my pocket Constitution and didn't see any prohibition of "dangerous and unusual arms."  It seems to me weapons, including hammers, are inherently dangerous.  By this standard, muskets from the Civil War would be excluded from ownership as they are now "unusual." This "ruling" lays the groundwork for getting rid of ALL weapons since they ALL fall into the dangerous and unusual categories.
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf