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

a reply to: Gryphon66

State law is secondary to federal law, ask the south.

originally posted by: buster2010
How can all the Trump supporters be against this? All these judges are doing is making their part of America safe again. We need to keep any weapons like the AR's out of the hands of the children of Muslim refugees so they can't go on killing sprees.
Make America great again by making America safe again.

So you think someone who is willing to kill people will be stopped because the gun is illegal?

"Gosh, I guess I can't break the law to kill people in cold blood because I'd have to break the law to get a gun..."

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

State law is secondary to federal law, ask the south.

In this case. both Federal law and State law apply.

The ruling to uphold Maryland's laws was based primarily on a SCOTUS decision based on the Constitution based in powers given to the Court BY the Constitution.

Really, not to put too fine an edge on this ... if you're against all that -- the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the sovreignty of the State of Maryland under Amendment 10 ... well, it really makes your opinion sound more than a little bit treasonous.

We have trump and a upcoming new Supreme Court of the United States judge.
I will bet that this ruling is over turned at the Supreme Court level.

If they totally ban the AR15 and everyone has to turn theirs in i will file a 5TH amendment taking.
The Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall not be taken without just compensation.
If everyone that had a AR15 and had to turn it in was to file a taking it would cost the government billions to buy back the guns.

Plus it would jam up the courts for 20 years.

That would make the government think twice about gun bans.

a reply to: ANNED

I'm sorry ... you think that the Supreme Court, even one stacked by Mr. Trump, is going to reverse Justice Scalia?

Are you even aware of the basis of this decision?

a reply to: Gryphon66

And from your point of view I would imagine it does sound treasonous.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

And from your point of view I would imagine it does sound treasonous.

Well, confused mostly, but my "point of view" is quoted directly from the Constitution and SCOTUS.

Still, saying you don't stand up for the Constitution ... pretty dicey there my friend.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

And from your point of view I would imagine it does sound treasonous.

Well, confused mostly, but my "point of view" is quoted directly from the Constitution and SCOTUS.

Still, saying you don't stand up for the Constitution ... pretty dicey there my friend.

So again, you think the intention was to limit people to non effective single shot muzzleloaders?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.)

I really liked Scalia, the man had a sound working knowledge of the constitution and was a sound voice of reason and balance....

It seems that some on the thread dont know who he is, they should really read up on him. Not only that he was well loved by his fellow justices......

PS: as far as muzzle loaders, lol theyll definitely put a hole in what you need it to!

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Yep. Read about Scalia. Read the Constitution. That would be very helpful.

For the record, I'm not crazy about the 4th's decision either. I'm not a fan of gun bans, or in this case, a gun sales ban, in fact, it used to be my strong opinion (and this is a LONG time ago) taht every adult should be required to carry a sidearm (I grew up near the city of Kennesaw GA which had a similar municipal code back in the 1980s.)

When the government bans something, it just makes people want it more.

Compulsory carry for all adults, I argued, would restore about 99% of common courtesy ... that is, after a few bloodbaths.

Omelets and eggs.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
[Really, not to put too fine an edge on this ... if you're against all that -- the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the sovreignty of the State of Maryland under Amendment 10 ... well, it really makes your opinion sound more than a little bit treasonous.

And you sound a little off base.

Did you read the opinion? Did you see what law they cited to justify their decision?

That's right, they didn't cite any law. They called upon 'intermediate' and 'strict scrutiny' for their ruling.

[W]e are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are "like" "M-16 rifles" - weapons that are most useful in military service

So because they say an AR-15 is like an M-16, it's legal. That's it. No law. No justification.

An AR-15 is not like an M-16, except to a gun hating judicial activist who doesn't care about the law or reality.

So your opinion on this matter sounds more than a little ignorant. That's okay though, ignorance can be corrected if you want to try educating yourself.

I wonder how many weak sniveling little leftists it will take to relieve me of my M4 (AR-15 variant)...?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

but but but they look so scary!
A Benelli MR1 with a standard hunting rifle stock, will that fall under this ban?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

They cited Heller which has as its ultimate authority the Constitution.

No, the logic is not based on the weapons per se but on the decision authored by Scalia in Heller (again).

You're arguing mechanics; they're arguing legal precedent as well as the Constitution.

My "opinion" is that the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and the 4th cited a SCOTUS ruling and the laws of a sovereign State.

Your opinion is that you know more than 10 4th Circuit judges (among the most conservative in the country, by the way) do about firearms. That may be true, but, and I hesitate to say as usual, your argument misses the point.

Sawed off shotguns amongst other weapons are now legal according to this courts ruling as sawed off shotguns were declared NOT a weapon of war in prior case and was formerly declared not eligible for 2nd amendment protection - guess that just turned on its head - golldarn which is it?

Simple question, name a major army that uses semi-auto as standard issue rifle - is that crickets?

WELP So Much For Logic As It Appears None used, however, Plenty Of Agenda Was On hand.

What a bunch of bozos, this won't stand long, hopefully lead to judges impeachment for totally ignoring Constitution, making up terms never used in 2nd amendment and contrary decision against higher court ruling in Heller.

a reply to: Phoenix

Er ... they used Heller as the basis of their decision.

May want to read the actual document ...

originally posted by: Metallicus
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.

You sound like my son!
We were talking, the other day, and he was going off on these new 'idiot gun laws' and he was all outraged and incensed, telling me that one of these laws says that you are going to have to take the rifle apart in order to insert the new clip!
The 'button release' will be/is illegal.
The point is that listening to him, I was noticing that he sounded like a practitioner of a religion, and the gov't was stepping in, with no valid reason, and screwing with his holy artifacts/relics (his 'Guns')!
A 'silencer' would be an artifact... Praise Sturm and Ruger, Amen...
Then there'll have to be the Coltians...
The Glockites...
After all, if you gun folks feel like that, then, yes, it IS a religion!
And the holy relics would have greater legal presence, then if they were just folk's guns.
It IS a religion!
He's seeing an attorney about it.
That is the only way that I can see to do an end run around some idiot laws.
I'd imagine that every NRA member would be signed up within a week, even Xtians! *__-
Man can have two religions!
What shall it be called?
"KaBoom, Inc!"? *__-

Good luck. If they couldn't get away with it when Obama was in the WH, it sure as hell isn't going to work with Trump.

they say weapons of war are not covered? what weapons exactly did they specifically leave out of the protection?
-did they ban knives or swords? or any other old style weapon. knives and swords had been military weapons for hundreds of years.
-did they ban muskets? a musket at the time being what most militaries around the world used as personal weapons for their troops in war at that time.
-did they ban cannon? cannon were what militaries around the world used for artillery.
-did they ban armed ships? armed ships were used by militaries (generally called navies) around the world.
-did they ban semi-automatic rifles, with a TWENTY ROUND MAGAZINE? oh yes it did exist when the constitution was written, and used by a country's military.

in point of fact there was no weapon stated that was available that was prohibited in the second amendment. these weapons were all out there and none of them was prohibited. people owned armed ships. people owned muskets. people owned cannon. people owned swords and knives. surely if they felt any weapon military or not, was not OK for people to own that existed at the time, they would have made note of it. you can't even use the excuse that they never envisioned a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine capacity, and thus did not ban it, because it did in fact exist at the time.

Why ARs? Don't pistols kill the majority of people in America?