AR-15s ‘Not Protected’ By 2nd Amendment & Can Be Banned, Court Rules In Landmark Decision

The US fourth Circuit court ruled that assault weapons and large capacity mags are not protected by the 2nd amend.

RICHMOND, Va. — The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ignored precedent and the Constitution in ruling this week that semi-automatic weapons don’t have Second Amendment protections, critics say.

In a 10-4 decision upholding Maryland’s ban on certain semi-automatic firearms, the judges went further than previous courts have in ruling that “assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment.”

thedailycoin.org...

Judge Rob King said that the court has no power to extend the 2nd amend to weapons of war, and also mentioned mass shootings in the decision and said they were justified to ban mags that hold over 10 rounds.

We have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage,” Judge Robert B. King wrote in the majority opinion.

King’s opinion mentioned the mass shootings in San Bernardino, Newtown and Orlando. Maryland state legislators, he wrote, were justified in banning weapons with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Too bad that the founders intention with the 2nd was to insure each able-bodies man had access to arms of military utility.

Ultimately, it's not up to some bureaucrat in a black robe to decide what people can and cannot use to defend themselves.

What're they going to do, kick in the door of each and every gun owner if they decide to get froggy and ban AR-pattern rifles? Not likely.

a reply to: seasonal

It will be nice when we weed out all these liberal nutter judges over the next few years. Seriously? There is no such thing as an 'assault rifle'...AR stands for Armalite rifle and they are still semi-automatic just like every other rifle that doesn't look 'scary'. More anti-liberty from left leaning courts.

a reply to: seasonal

Wow.
Im not sure if its too early to respond, this covers ranch guns too id suspect like ruger mini 14s and 30s.

This is a huge breach of the second to me.. I suspect a lot more press over this.. and supreme court. I bet theyre pushing the issue before Trump gets his appointment to the court

What in the literal f**k just happened?

EVERY weapon is a "weapon of war"!
Jeeps are used in wars, are they weapons of war? Ban them!
Knives are "weapons of war"! Ban them too!

I don't see the logic here.
I see an all out assault on the 2nd amendment.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

I would not want the job of kicking in the door. And I would imagine it would be a difficult job to fill after the first couple are you know, no longer working there.

a reply to: seasonal

It won't stand up to appeals. The 4th circuit is kinda known for this.

a reply to: Metallicus

An assault rifle uses a rifle ammo and is capable of full auto, right?

An AR is semi, more double speak from liberals. No military is going to use semi autos for service.

Um, aren't "Assault Weapons" full auto????

We have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage,” Judge Robert B. King wrote in the majority opinion.

They acknowledge they have no power to extend protection of an amendment...

But they have power to limit an amendment...

Interesting. Must be nice!

Glad I just bought my AR. If the government wants to take it, they can pry it from my, well you know the rest. If liberals want to start a war, this is a good way to do it.

a reply to: seasonal

The US fourth Circuit court ruled that assault weapons and large capacity mags are not protected by the 2nd amend.

The second Amendment was written with the intentions to "any kinds of guns", nowhere in the second Amendment is it suggested that guns more powerful in the future will not be covered.

The whole point of the second Amendment was for the People have the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government.

At the time when the second amendment was signed, the armies and the people were on an equal playing field when it came to everyone owning guns.

Why should that be changed?

Judge Rob King said that the court has no power to extend the 2nd amend to weapons of war, and also mentioned mass shootings in the decision and said they were justified to ban mags that hold over 10 rounds.

Lame excuse.

The second amendment doesnt need special powers to extend for weapons of war!

This corrupt, scumbag, Judge King who is bought and paid for has decided to misinterpret, what the second amendment was written for.

It was written so We The People can protected ourselves from scum like Judge King and Washington's tyrants.

They can't even get the definition right. Looks like this won't go far, bound to fail, etc. Any replies about it yet from opposing lawmakers?

a reply to: seasonal

We've had mass killings with handguns, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, machetes, and even cars. The AR-15 is not the reason guns are dangerous. Guns are dangerous because guns are in the hands of dangerous people.

Here's one liberal snowflake who thinks banning the AR-15 is completely ridiculous.

a reply to: six67seven

Good point, I did not think about that.

a reply to: Abysha

Logic rules the posts. Thank you

need I point out the obvious, in 1776 muskets were weapons of war and yet the founding fathers had no problem with the private ownership of muskets,so clearly the founding fathers intended for people to be allowed to own weapons of war.

a reply to: Tardacus

Agreed, I would love a BAR or M-60. I don't know if I could feed it. So, should we have these for reals-ees arms?

originally posted by: Informer1958
The whole point of the second Amendment was for the People have the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government.

Some of those holding seats in the government are righteously scared. That's why they're doing what they're doing.

They're afraid. Ahhhhhahahahahaha!!

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.