Maryland's assault weapons ban upheld by US appeals court

[needledriver]

http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/US-appeals-court-upholds-Maryland-assault-weapons-10948756.php

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

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.

How many times have you seen a meme crawl across your Facebook feed to the effect of "The Democrats aren't coming for your guns" as part of a long list debunking right wing paranoid claims? If you live in California, or Maryland, or New York the Democrats ARE coming for your guns.

California. Maryland. New York. Nice reliable blue voting states. Even if you are "deplorable or "stupid" it is clear to see that if you vote Democratic you are voting for a party that has an active policy of eroding your right to keep and bear arms. Even if you are not really sure whether Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act are the same thing and are tempted to give the Democrat the benefit of the doubt, there's no doubt in your mind, based on actual demonstrated results, that if you vote for a Democrat you are voting for a party that will make it more difficult to buy firearms, and impossible to buy the ones you want.

This. Shit. Costs. Us. Votes.

Why is it that Liberals will twist themselves into emotional knots defending the right of Nazis to exercise their freedom of speech by parading through a Jewish neighborhood, but lose their shit if one of those same Nazis wants to own a black aluminum and plastic semi automatic rifle? What quality of "Right" does Freedom of Speech or Worship have that the "Right" to Keep and Bear Arms does not possess?

[scscholar]

1. And all guns are weapons of war so this bans all guns

This is a major victory.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Silly me

I thought there would be nothing funny about this thread.

[needledriver]

4. I do not agree with what you say, Sir,

but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


I have the tools to do it - and you don't.

[sarisataka]

5. But if the Second Amendment is about the militia,

as some have opined, wouldn't it therefore be about "weapons of war." If a militia is not armed for war what good is it?

[yagotme]

9. Yes. Wasn't that the gov'ts case in Miller?

That the military doesn't use short barreled shotguns? Now they want to ban "military type" weapons. Talk about a twisted logic.

[jmg257]

7. I am sure trump would agree. Doing so would give his authoritative forces so much more power.

And no reason not to trust THEM, right?

[pablo_marmol]

11. It's astonishing that so many Controllers have yet to figure out......

........that the 2nd Amendment was written for menaces like Dolt 45. Sad.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. I rather think it was written AGAINST that sort of menace n/t

[yagotme]

18. I think that you think that he thought you would think that.

Or words to that effect.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. "Guangzhou is a chemical weapons plant masquerading as a fertilizer plant.

We know this. The Chinese know that we know. But we make-believe that we don't know and the Chinese make-believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know. Everybody knows."

Dialog Under Siege 2.

At least I think so.

[pablo_marmol]

20. Thank you. I think.

[pablo_marmol]

21. Of course better way of stating the point would have been.......

.......that the 2A was written with menaces like Dolt 45 in mind. Doh!

[yagotme]

23. Yeah, I hate it when I type something,

and what I typed has nothing to do with what I was trying to convey.

[MarvinGardens]

2. Agree.

But then I am very strongly pro- civil liberties.

[jmg257]

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

What about that whole "A well-regulated Militia.." clause we are constantly reminded of??

The purpose of the 2nd was SPECIFICALLY to protect the people's access to weapons of war.
What use would a Militia be without effective weapons?

Just because of it's securities was confirmed to include the individual right to arms for lawful purposes in Heller, that decision not do away with the original intent....securing to the people the right to arms applicable for their role in the Militias.

[benEzra]

44. How about these weapons of war?

Ummmm, how about these weapons of war?





Or military infantry rifles like this?



Or this?



Or this military-style handgun?



Or this military-style shotgun?



Since most civilian guns are just as "military-style" as civilian AR-15's are, declaring that the Second Amendment doesn't protect "military-style" guns is a declaration that the Second Amendment protects pretty much nothing. Especially since "military-style" revolvers, pistols, and shotguns kill far more Americans annually than rifles do.

This court's opinion stemmed from ignorance and naivete on the part of some of the judges, and the willingness of the gun-control lobby to lie through their teeth about Title 1 civilian guns. And yes, this opinion hurts Dems nationwide.

[N77VG]

8. What's next, a ban on "assault speech"?

[yagotme]

10. It's called "hate" speech.

And before anyone jumps on me, just remember. Be careful what you ask for. It may just become law, and apply to YOU as well.

[N77VG]

16. I'm hugely offended when the 'christian right' (which is neither) pushes for hate against ME

when they employ the most ugly and salacious expletives to demonize me as a gay man but I can't stop believing in
that old concept of "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

It really does seem to me that a lot of people on both sides of the left/right line don't much like it any more either.

[yagotme]

17. Yes, it's human nature to want to shut someone down

that is verbally assaulting you, but I am a strong believer in the 1st as well, doesn't mean I have to LIKE what they say! Or be forced to sit and listen to them, either.

[pablo_marmol]

12. I got yer "assault weapon" right here.

No less lethal than an AR or AK semi-auto:

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5802.html

[Hangingon]

13. My SKS will pass too.

[oneshooter]

14. As will my M1 Garands

They are not "assault rifles/weapons".

They are Battle Rifles.

[wincest]

25. thats not a battle rifle

this is a battle rifle http://www.mosinnagant.net/ussr/russian-m44-carbine.asp

but in all seriousness, if i had the money i would own an m1 garand paired with a nice 1911.

[oneshooter]

43. You might want to ask

the Germans

the Japanese

the North Koreans

the Chinese

Then get back to me.

[wincest]

51. my apoligies

my reply to you was a little joke, i was referencing crocodile dundee "that's not a knife". i wanted to buy an m1 but could only afford the mosin.

mosins are fine rifles, but nothing beats an m1.

you have to admit those comm-bloc weapons are good considering their price. great for young guys like me on a budget.

[oneshooter]

54. I was once like you, young and on a budget.

Now things have changed.........................I got old.



And am still on a budget.

[pablo_marmol]

22. "Why is it that Liberals will twist themselves into emotional knots......."

And why is it that liberals will loudly confront Trump on his lie relating to an "out of control murder rate" while simultaneously lying about our "epidemic of gun violence"?!?! Not exactly a cred enhancer. A large percentage of the population rightfully ask themselves if we tell the truth about anything, given our stupid and obvious lies regarding gun violence.

[yagotme]

24. If a person you talk to keeps spouting obvious lies,

then they have no cred on anything else they say.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

26. GOOD!!!

[wincest]

27. may i ask

why you believe this is good?

what is your definition of an assault weapon?

this is a Ca/NY legal ar15

its still a semi auto 5.56/.223 with a detachable magazine.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

28. All guns are assault weapons. I'm totally anti-gun.

[benEzra]

45. Then don't own one.

And don't send people with guns to force the rest of us to live by your beliefs. Or are you just opposed to guns that aren't in the hands of corporations and security forces?

[pablo_marmol]

29. Good that we're turning over the nation to the GOP to no good end?

You have one very odd concept of good vs. bad.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

30. Guns BAD.

[pablo_marmol]

31. Well now THERE'S intelligent discourse!! NT

[50 Shades Of Blue]

32. Wanted you to understand it.

[pablo_marmol]

33. More like cowardice. NT

[ManiacJoe]

37. A common misconception.

> Guns BAD.

A common misconception. Objects do not possess the ability to be good or bad. That attribute is completely owned by the user.

[pablo_marmol]

40. And The Controllers refer to us as knuckle-draggers, while they..........

........hold to the prehistoric mindset that evil is capable of lurking in inanimate objects. That guns are imbued with evil that gets "magically" passed on to the purchasers/owners.

Hypocrisy/stupidity/insanity example #34,021.

[yagotme]

49. Better round them up, then.

Try starting with the police and military. Let me know how you do.

[jimmy the one]

34. rubbish

needledriver: .. "The Democrats aren't coming for your guns" as part of a long list debunking right wing paranoid claims? If you live in California, or Maryland, or New York the Democrats ARE coming for your guns.

Specious strained reasoning from needledriver. The democrat party is not coming for the predominance of american firearms, only a small proportion of the national gunstock to be banned in conforming states - firearms which in good part morphed from rifles with automatic capabilities many of which can be backfitted to full automatic with common tools or conversion kits.
Even these are not to be banned in other states, nor confiscated, just controlled, so your emboldened premise above is invalid convoluted reasoning.
The democrat party wants to preserve gun control sanity to participating blue states with more urban populations, by proscribing semi-automatic rifles commonly termed 'assault rifles',

needledriver: California. Maryland. New York. Nice reliable blue voting states. Even if you are "deplorable or "stupid" it is clear to see that if you vote Democratic you are voting for a party that has an active policy of eroding your right to keep and bear arms.

Biggest bunch of bull**** I've read this month. About the only thing 'clear' in your ugly diatribe above is that you yourself, imo, fit in your personality trait descriptions. There is nothing 'clear' that you contend, only specious twisted reasoning.
Your transmogrified fear of democrats 'eroding' rkba is akin to washing your car and worrying about it being carried off in a flood.
States have a right to decide for themselves which gun control policies work best for their own state, and not have to prostrate themselves to specious sanctimonious gun lobby arguments like what you proffer above,
If you don't like the gun laws in california or new york or md or hawaii, move to a red state where you can shoot off your assault rifle as much as you like while scaring the **** out of the saner republicans living there.

needledriver: Why is it that Liberals will twist themselves into emotional knots defending the right of Nazis to exercise their freedom of speech by parading through a Jewish neighborhood,...

Huh? you can provide some source for this contention? This is not in any way a general trait of liberals, just warped disinformation.

.. but lose their shit if one of those same Nazis wants to own a black aluminum and plastic semi automatic rifle?

This sounds like trump rationale. Or rather bannon I should say. Let me get this BS straight, you are OK with an american nazi or neo nazi walking thru a jewish neighborhood with an AK47 or AR15? does it at least need be shouldered? or is it an rkba infringement if not allowed to carry on the hip?

What quality of "Right" does Freedom of Speech or Worship have that the "Right" to Keep and Bear Arms does not possess?

You did not need be part of a well regulated militia to exercise the first right(s).

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. Your header, at least, was accurate- much of what you posted *was* rubbish

firearms which in good part morphed from rifles with automatic capabilities many of which can be backfitted to full automatic with common tools or conversion kits.

These 'conversion kits' are The Controllers version of Wayne LaPierre's 'professional protestors':

https://www.salon.com/2017/02/28/the-nras-new-gun-sales-pitch-america-is-a-war-zone-and-the-violent-left-is-coming-for-you/

“The truth is, the far left — they’ve turned protesting into what seems like a full-time profession,” said LaPierre. “Seriously, you would think that for $1,500 a week, they would at least know what they are protesting,” he added, referencing the current right-wing hypothesis that anti-Trump protesters can only be paid provocateurs.

IOW, repeated nonsense presented without evidence-but I am willing to give you the
benefit of the doubt, James: Just obtain one and present evidence of it...

Even these are not to be banned in other states, nor confiscated, just controlled

Yeaaah, about that:

http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2015/code-pen/part-6/title-4/division-10/chapter-2/article-3/section-30720

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-30720.html

(a) Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000:

(1) Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h) of former Section 12281.

(2) Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to former Section 12288, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989.

(3) Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by former Section 12285, as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994.

(b) Any person who has obtained title to an SKS rifle by bequest or intestate succession shall be required to comply with paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) unless that person otherwise complies with paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of former Section 12285, as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994, or as subsequently amended.

Still law in California, James...

States have a right to decide for themselves which gun control policies work best for their own state, and not have to prostrate themselves to specious sanctimonious gun lobby arguments like what you proffer above,
If you don't like the gun laws in california or new york or md or hawaii, move

How about 'marriage control' Does local interpretation of the Second Amendment apply to the Fourteenth?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141716858

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141716763

[needledriver]

36. Thank you for your reply

I have long since applied no weight or value to jimmy the ones posts; I don't even bother reading them anymore.

[jimmy the one]

38. OOOOOOOOOK, lahoma

icon: Just obtain one and present evidence of it... >> (citing me writing): Even these are not to be banned in other states, nor confiscated, just controlled

How about Mississippi? Texas? Vermont even? Dakotas? OOOOOOklahoma where the wind comes.., uh, affects your windage setting?

Reread what I wrote sherlock, where I contended that, outside of conforming states with assault weapon bans, 'other states' were not in democrat plans to ban or confiscate. Only current democrat plans are to control assault rifles in generally red states:

The democrat party is not coming for the predominance of american firearms, only a small proportion of the national gunstock to be banned in conforming states - firearms which in good part morphed from rifles with automatic capabilities many of which can be backfitted to full automatic with common tools or conversion kits.
Even these are not to be banned in other states, nor confiscated, just controlled, so your emboldened premise above is invalid convoluted reasoning.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Still no evidence of these purported "conversion kits"- smells like Trump's 'wiretaps' to me.

Added on edit: In light of this subthread, the disinterested reader is invited to consider points #3 and 6 of
the article linked to this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028755744

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. "Reread what I wrote". I did- and the parts you bolded are *also* incorrect:

Here's the *national* Democratic Party Platform for 2016. These were supposed to apply everywhere,
remember?:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

Page 39, "Preventing Gun Violence"

...we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous
loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
(PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now
enjoy; and keep weapons of war such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines
(LCAM's) off our streets.

'Aegument by assertion' doesn't work for Trump, and it certainly isn't working for you...

[jimmy the one]

42. iconic nut

...we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous
loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
(PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now
enjoy; and keep weapons of war such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines
(LCAM's) off our streets

The platform appears saying to limit assault rifles from being carried in the streets, which doesn't necessarily mean an outright ban. Could simply be proscription against open carry, aside from ban in states which want a ban.
Your strained reasoning is specious & your argument is pathetic once again.

Here's the *national* Democratic Party Platform for 2016. These were supposed to apply everywhere,
remember?:

No I don't recall they are supposed to apply everywhere. How you get that? They take states victories as success.
You con once again, as your name implies.
You related to trump stooge kellycan conaway?

[yagotme]

50. "Off our streets".

Not banned, just "limiting" them from being outside the home. Ok. How do you purchase one, and bring it home? How do you practice with it, and learn how to properly handle/fire it, if you can't take it outside your home? Is there a certain number of times a year you can bring it out into the light? Who gets to proscribe this? It is basically a de-facto ban, as once it is in your home, it can never leave again, without a bunch of hoop-jumping. Or did they mean something else? If so, maybe they should have been a "little more clearer".

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Prepare yourself for a verbose word-salad that doesn't really answer your question

[yagotme]

57. I know.

I've been here long enough to know what's probably coming.

[Straw Man]

55. Oh, that's rich. So very rich.

The platform appears saying to limit assault rifles from being carried in the streets, which doesn't necessarily mean an outright ban. Could simply be proscription against open carry, aside from ban in states which want a ban.
our strained reasoning is specious & your argument is pathetic once again.

So the admonition to "keep weapons of war such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's) off our streets" is really about open carry? And we can have as many "assault weapons" and high-cap magazines as we want, as long as we don't flaunt them? Or is that only at the national level, and when it's invoked at the state level, it's about outright bans?

Talk about strained reasoning and pathetic arguments ...

[benEzra]

56. I'd like to see a citation of even one Senate/House "assault weapons ban" bill in the last ten years

that merely banned open carry of modern-looking rifles or post-1860 magazines, rather than banning their transfer and/or possession.

[benEzra]

46. It would be nice if the gun-ban fundamentalists would acknowledge this fact from time to time...

....over thirty thousand gun deaths a year, they say, mostly either suicides or murders with small-caliber handguns by already-prohibited criminals, and the fundamentalists are tied up in knots obsessing about the size/shape of rifle handgrips and magazines, and how to prevent the peaceable and nonviolent from owning them.

Rifle Homicides, 2005-2015
2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285
2014: 248
2015: 252
(Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005-2015, Table 20, Collated)

Massachusetts has averaged less than one rifle murder per year for the last decade or so, and yet the fundies *still* pushed through a middle-of-the-night ban on the most popular rifles. That is irrational, and absolutely counterproductive.

If you are willing to throw away election after election because you are obsessed with rifle and magazine bans, you have totally lost sight of your goals, unless your goal is simply to screw people who live their lives differently than you do.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. I hate to think of instances of the words...

..."we'll show them" that have done more harm in terms of lost elections and even recalls.