Federal Appeals Court Rules Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment

[Elderberry]

 NBCNEWS.com

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — 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."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapons-not-protected-second-amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

[geronl]

There is nothing in the second amendment that limits our gun rights based on his OPINION of what is a "weapon of war"

[Elderberry]

There is nothing in the second amendment that limits our gun rights based on his OPINION of what is a "weapon of war"

A handgun is a  "weapon of war"

"WHAT GOOD CAN A HANDGUN DO AGAINST AN ARMY.....?"
http://www.civiliandefenseforce.com/whatgoodisahandgun.html

[INVAR]

Liberty is always made illegal by despots, and tyranny and despotism is made legal by the same.

[Smokin Joe]

NBCNEWS.com

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — 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."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapons-not-protected-second-amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

Nonsense. The Second Amendment was penned to protect the Right of the People to be armed with weapons for that purpose, among others. Either the Judge(s) are being dishonest, or they haven't even read The Federalist--which explained exactly the logic of having the vast majority of the population armed as a means to protect against tyranny from within and without, which could be imposed by a standing Federal Army or a State Militia. The whole concept logically follows, considering the Americans had recently ousted the Military Governorships and occupying troops of Great Britain, and thus, were wary of even an American standing Army.

BTW, how do Liberals manage to reconcile their expressed (and erroneous) belief it only protects the right of the militia to be armed, and then claim it doesn't protect the Right to own and bear "weapons of war"?  (A "militia" is an army, whether it is as well trained, well equipped, or in as good a fighting trim as front-line troops.)

[Smokin Joe]

A handgun is a  "weapon of war"

"WHAT GOOD CAN A HANDGUN DO AGAINST AN ARMY.....?"
http://www.civiliandefenseforce.com/whatgoodisahandgun.html

So is a stick (especially with a 'pointy' end). Rocks have been used as well, to good effect (see: David and Goliath for a notable example).

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This is why I voted Trump, despite despising the guy. Getting good people into the courts.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

A handgun is a  "weapon of war"

"WHAT GOOD CAN A HANDGUN DO AGAINST AN ARMY.....?"
http://www.civiliandefenseforce.com/whatgoodisahandgun.html

So is a waffle iron or a frying pan.

It's not the inanimate object but the use it's put to.

And while we're on the subject of Assault Rifles and the implication that the Founders couldn't have envisioned anything like them, notice the Patent date:

The Puckle Gun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

[Smokin Joe]

So is a waffle iron or a frying pan.

It's not the inanimate object but the use it's put to.

And while we're on the subject of Assault Rifles and the implication that the Founders couldn't have envisioned anything like them, notice the Patent date:

The Puckle Gun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

See Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater the Kalthoff Repeater. Expensive, finnicky, but an issue arm from even earlier.

[starstruck]

NBCNEWS.com

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,"

Extend? The 2nd is about weapons of war. There is no extending involved. It talks about the need to maintain a free state and the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. That is not about hunting. When they say the word "people" is talking about a collective group which makes up the state, they are ignoring language throughout the "Bill of Rights" which differentiates between states and people.

1st Amendment: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is an individual thing

4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" is an individual thing.

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." is an individual thing.

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment clearly indicates a differentiation between state and people.

There was also the argument that individual states were not themselves restricted by the "Bill of Rights" in that it was restriction being placed on Congress. There were even some SCOTUS rulings early on which agreed with that contention. However, the 14th Amendment established the same restrictions preventing states from violating the "Bill of rights" for individuals.

Now it seems like there is one governmental group left that thinks it doesn't have to abide by the restrictions of the "Bill of Rights". That is the Judiciary. This branch of the government has gathered way too much power and needs the other 2 branches to exert their checks and balances.