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

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

no i never heard a cadence that said

running through the jungle with my ar 15
i'm a mean ----------er
i'm a U.S. Marine

when i was in the Corps

a reply to: seasonal

A representation of a delusional person abusing their power.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: whywhynot
I've been to war and didn't see a single AR15 there.

Not many outside former military will get that

Actually no; anyone with a basic understanding about firearms should understand the difference between an AR and a fully automatic rifle. One trip to a gun store will inform most people...when they ask to buy an M-16.

And again, contrary to these screwy judges, "AR" does NOT stand for 'Assault Rifle' (contrary to what the media will tell people every single time), it's stands for 'Armalite Rifle'.

Ha, thats funny, I bet there is lots of people that think AR stands for Assault Rifle, I had never thought of that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The constitution mentions some of the God given rights, not all of them. It spell out what the Govt can't take, but it by no means is a limit on our rights, it limits the govt.

a reply to: Tardacus

I don't know if I can presume to know what the founding fathers would have approved of regarding more destructive weapons... but these were people that were fond of using working field cannons as lawn decorations. *shrug*

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Constitution is quite clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Telling me I cannot have a semi auto firearm is indeed infringing upon my rights.

No it's not.

Your right is to keep and bear arms. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to buy any weapons you wish.

Indeed, in the Heller decision, our dear Justice Scalia, may he rest in peace, had this to say:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Aside from that, it's also a States Rights issue. This regards the laws of the Sovereign State of Maryland, whose government and people have a right to make laws that they feel protects their communities, and as the 4th Circuit has said, this prohibition stands.

Sorry you don't get what you want ... do you live in Maryland?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

The constitution mentions some of the God given rights, not all of them. It spell out what the Govt can't take, but it by no means is a limit on our rights, it limits the govt.

You might want to actually read it sometime. You sound like you're repeating what you've read on websites.

The Second Amendment does limit the government banning all weapons, or taking your weapons away from you.

It doesn't grant you the right to any sort of firearm, mortar, explosive, etc. that you choose to hold.

Strict construction after all.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry, this is an infringement by leftists who legislate from the bench.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry, this is an infringement by leftists who legislate from the bench.

Justice Scalia was a leftist who legislated from the bench?

You're going to have to offer more than catch-phrases to prove that.

originally posted by: havok
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.

If they can convince enough people that AR-15's are weapons of war (and should be banned) then every other firearm is next.

a reply to: Gryphon66

"arms". Pretty broad term.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

"arms". Pretty broad term.

Not according to Justice Scalia and the Constitution.

Your right is to keep and bear arms (firearms). The government of Maryland's right (see Amendment 10) is to determine what weapons will and in this case will not be available for purchase in their state.

These are basic conservative values Seasonal.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Fine........have it your way......

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

"arms". Pretty broad term.

Not according to Justice Scalia and the Constitution.

Your right is to keep and bear arms (firearms). The government of Maryland's right (see Amendment 10) is to determine what weapons will and in this case will not be available for purchase in their state.

These are basic conservative values Seasonal.

So you would be ok with the government of Maryland coming out and saying that only muzzleloaders qualify for civilian ownership?
Will 10-22's be next?
Geesh, i'm a lever action kinda guy anyways, but still like to plink with the semi's.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We disagree, and I disagree with the supreme court and more than likely the NRA.

At least I am consistent.

a reply to: Gryphon66

arms1
[ärmz]
NOUN

weapons and ammunition; armaments:
"they were subjugated by force of arms" ·
"arms exports"
synonyms: weapons · weaponry · firearms · guns · ordnance · artillery · armaments ·
munitions · matériel

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Gryphon66

Fine........have it your way......

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It's not my way MBTM ... it's the way of the Constitution, our beloved Justice Scalia, and the laws of the sovereign state of Maryland.

(Although, I have always considered a musket in the right hands to be more than deadly enough for most legitimate purposes. Not to mention one equipped with a bayonet. Sheesh.)

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

en.wikipedia.org...

here it goes into detail on what is an assault weapon.

The term assault rifle, when used in its proper context, militarily or by its specific functionality, has a generally accepted definition with the firearm manufacturing community.[1][not in citation given] In more casual usage, the term assault weapon is sometimes conflated or confused with the term assault rifle.[89][90]

In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified a definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher
Some states have passed more restrictive laws, with more inclusive definitions of assault weapons. One example is the NY SAFE Act, which changed the restriction to one or more (rather than two or more) of the above features, and expanded the restricted muzzle devices beyond just flash suppressors to include compensators and muzzle brakes.

Assault weapons legislation does not further restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.[91]

O well I guess I was unaware that Wikipedia was defined in the Constitution as the go to work for clearing up any constitutional cloudiness.

a reply to: seasonal

You're arguing from a dictionary that you didn't even bother to cite properly.

I'm arguing with backup from the Constitution and the Supreme Court and our beloved Justice Scalia.

I don't know what to tell you about disagreeing with all that.

Besides, if you don't live in Maryland, the decision doesn't affect you.