US appeals court upholds Maryland assault weapons ban
Source: Associated Press
Brian Witte, Associated Press Updated 3:23 pm, Tuesday, February 21, 2017
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) A federal appeals court has upheld Maryland's ban on 45 assault weapons and a 10-round limit on gun magazines.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, issued the ruling Tuesday.
The court ruled that the banned assault weapons "are not protected by the Second Amendment."
The court says: "Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war" that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded from such coverage.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/US-appeals-court-upholds-Maryland-assault-weapons-10948756.php
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)fortunately I live in one like most gun owners.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)interpretation before. According to gunners, Heller was a "landmark" decision on gunners right to arm up with all type weapons. Here we have a unique interpretation of Heller. Now, the other unique interpretation will be that Heller only applies to guns in home and is evidence the Supreme Court is against the carrying of weapons in society by anti-social, paranoid gun goofs. I like it. Better go oil yours up.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is not court rulings that are stopping states from adopting AWBs but the lack of broad public support. Look at my state, Rhode Island - every year an AWB is proposed and every year it gets shot down. And this in a blue Democrat dominated state.
Of course my rifles are well oiled - they work better that way. And since I will be shooting them for years to come it is important that they don't wear out prematurely.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Might upgrade the barrel but beyond that I am set.
madokie
(51,076 posts)when I was in 'Nam the last thing you wanted was a 'well oiled' gun. cleaned, lightly oiled then wiped dry otherwise you'd have a misfiring weapon just when you need it the most. Oil attracts dust/dirt/sand, not good for a smooth action. IMO
Of course I don't and won't own a gun in todays world. back when I was in a war yup I carried a weapon at all times, sometimes slept with one but not here stateside in a somewhat civilized world. my part is long enough If you get my drift
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)All these fools running around with "assault" weapons -- playing army -- cracks me up. I guess a lot of them are really into white wing militias nowadays.
I do get your drift, but don't need specifics. LOL
madokie
(51,076 posts)us old men/women who actually fought in a war want to do is to play war
Peace
derby378
(30,252 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)not swayed by the right-wing NRA and their followers.
50 Shades Of Blue
(9,777 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Heller specifically allows strict regulation of guns.
derby378
(30,252 posts)Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383384 (1824); ONeill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service - M-16 rifles and the like - may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
hack89
(39,171 posts)That has hamstrung gun control in America - not the 2A
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Much as the 3/5 compromise was predicated on simplistic popularity dedicated to the lowest common denominators rather than justice.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The expansion of civil rights over my life time is a wonderful thing.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)shameful.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I think you need to take a civics class. In America, there is nothing higher when it comes to rights than the Constitution.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)as important as civil rights like those fought for by Blacks, women, etc.
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/civil-rights-vs-civil-liberties.html
"It is important to note the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties." The legal area known as "civil rights" has traditionally revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment and housing. "Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties include:
Freedom of speech
The right to privacy
The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
The right to a fair court trial
The right to marry
The right to vote
"One way to consider the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties" is to look at 1) what right is affected, and 2) whose right is affected. For example, as an employee, you do not have the legal right to a promotion, mainly because getting a promotion is not a guaranteed "civil liberty." But, as a female employee you do have the legal right to be free from discrimination in being considered for that promotion -- you cannot legally be denied the promotion based on your gender (or race, or disability, etc.). By choosing not to promote a female worker solely because of the employee's gender, the employer has committed a civil rights violation and has engaged in unlawful employment discrimination based on sex or gender."
_____
Besides, gunners interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is quite different from everyone else.
Maybe you should read up on things like "The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-origins-of-public-carry-jurisprudence-in-the-slave-south/407809/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
hack89
(39,171 posts)In the US legal system. There is absolutely nothing higher.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)This is not, no matter how gunners try to couch it:
hack89
(39,171 posts)nothing is higher than the BOR. Including the the 2A.
madokie
(51,076 posts)they refer to some of these weapon variants as weapons of war, cause that is exactly what some are. No hunter of game needs a thirty round clip, nor a 20 for that matter, hell the argument can be made for a ten round clip as far as that goes. Only hunters of the ultimate game have a need for such. IMHO
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Buckeyeblue
(5,491 posts)The court admits that the idea of a public militia is outdated and just plain impossible, yet says that the right cannot be ignored. That makes no sense. If there is no reasonable expectation of the need or effectiveness of a militia, there is no right to bare arms.
I'm not against guns. For some people hunting is very much a tradition, if not a culture. I don't think anyone needs an assult weapon. I'm skeptical of the need to carry. Most people are not trained or capable of acting rationally in a crisis.
I don't own a gun. I've shot all types of guns. It's fun but that doesn't change my opinion.
I love arguing second amendment with gun people. They don't understand the context and the don't understand the long american history of gun laws.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It is within the state's constitutional powers to regulate guns stupidly.
But, in all seriousness: we need to pick a different hill to die on. If we want to ban rapid-fire rifles, we should ban them, but passing laws regulating their grip shape and whether or not they can accept a bayonet is an absurd waste of time.
Rex
(65,616 posts)That shouldn't piss off to many gun people (there has to be 1000s of assault weapons types), but I bet the 10 round limit does.