AR-15 Not Protected by Second Amendment

[TripleDigitRide]

So says a federal judge.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court-cases/breaking-federal-judge-rules-ar-15s-are-dangerous-and-unusual-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment/

[Wingshooter]

You got to love it when a federal court starts making up their own constitution. I'd like for them to show me where "dangerous or unusual" or "commonly used" has anything to do with it. They could pick any number of gun models off the shelf and apply that "logic".

[Lowpower]

Perhaps that's the plan?

[Jonnin]

arms: noun: anything that can be used as a weapon, literally or figuratively (armed with a rolled up newspaper, the housewife prepared to battle the offending roach).  Or, "armed with the right to vote, the people prepared to oust the RINO". 

 

How we get illiterate judges?  Law is supposed to weed out the people that can't read and write.   

Edited August 13, 2014 by Jonnin

[JayC]

I predict this will get overturned on appeal.

[Wheelgunner]

Looks like the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is going to have to rein in Judge Blake.  This will be overturned faster than you can say "abuse of discretion."

Edited August 13, 2014 by Wheelgunner

[Oh Shoot]

Looks like the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is going to have to rein in Judge Blake.  This will be overturned faster than you can say "abuse of discretion."

 

Maybe, maybe not. Even though AR15 and AK47 are of course are among the most common rifles both in US and world wide, note that even Scalia on the Supremes has opined in Heller and elsewhere that certain weapons may be prohibited under 2A.

 

So I suppose the battle will ultimately be over which, not if. As always, the devil in the details, and of course the Supremes always rule as narrowly as possible when they get something in their hands.

 

The bad part of all this is that the narrow 5/4 majority that decided Heller and McDonald, without a GOP majority in the Senate in '15 and/or a Republican president in '17 will soon tilt the other way, and likely for a long time.

 

- OS

[cjohnson44546]

This judge is not very bright.

 

She says the the second amendment is about the right to have a weapon in your home to defend yourself...

 

She also said that semi-auto rifles are just as dangerous, or even more dangerous, than their fully automatic counterparts... what type of stupid is that?

[daddyo]

Modern firearms are infinitely safer than the ones American colonists owned when the Second Amendment was written.

Edited August 13, 2014 by daddyo

[TrickyNicky]

This judge is not very bright.
 
She says the the second amendment is about the right to have a weapon in your home to defend yourself...
 
She also said that semi-auto rifles are just as dangerous, or even more dangerous, than their fully automatic counterparts... what type of stupid is that?

I'll agree that she's dimmer than a broken lightbulb, but to be fair there are plenty of pro NFA gun folks out there sharing a similar or identical opinion on semi vs FA being no more dangerous than each other. I've even heard plenty if knowledgable pro gun folks opine that a semi is more effective as it is easier to use.

We can't have our cake and eat it too.

[Omega]

I'll agree that she's dimmer than a broken lightbulb, but to be fair there are plenty of pro NFA gun folks out there sharing a similar or identical opinion on semi vs FA being no more dangerous than each other. I've even heard plenty if knowledgable pro gun folks opine that a semi is more effective as it is easier to use.

We can't have our cake and eat it too.

I am in the camp that semi is more effective than auto due to control, that is if the effect I seek is steel on target.  If I seek a psychological effectiveness then full auto is my nod.  As far as dangerous goes, hell its been reported that a hammer is more dangerous than any firearm!    

[mikegideon]

I'm betting Judge Blake has an Obama logo engraved into her strap-on.

[wjh2657]

A rifle is a rifle. Ban them all or ban none. This ruling won't fly in the upper courts.

[Oh Shoot]

A rifle is a rifle. Ban them all or ban none. This ruling won't fly in the upper courts.

 

I wouldn't bet the farm. Various states already have banned SBR, SBS, AOW, suppressors, .50 BMG rifles, high cap mags, and various ammo for a long time,  there's your precedent maybe.

 

All comes down to what the courts decide the "meaning of is is".

 

- OS

Edited August 13, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[RED333]

I'm betting Judge Blake has an Obama logo engraved into her strap-on.

and it is rainbow colored.

[Ugly]

Maybe they'll hand out a new version of their constitution when we're in the cheese line.

[gregintenn]

Dangerous and unusual? Care to show me a rifle today that is more "usual" than an AR15? :ugh:

[Hershmeister]

Her haircut is unusual

[Oh Shoot]

Dangerous and unusual? Care to show me a rifle today that is more "usual" than an AR15? :ugh:

 

Civilians are only supposed to still have muskets, ya know?

 

- OS

[Clod Stomper]

I'm betting Judge Blake has an Obama logo engraved into her strap-on.

Oh snap!

 

Ummm... whatever a strap-on is, I mean...

[herr.baer]

I can't wait to get out of Maryland!!!! :down: :down:

[macville]

When was the last time an "assault rifle" was legal to own in Maryland? Kinda hard to have any record of them being used in self defense if they've been illegal there for a long time, right?

[Jonnin]

I'll agree that she's dimmer than a broken lightbulb, but to be fair there are plenty of pro NFA gun folks out there sharing a similar or identical opinion on semi vs FA being no more dangerous than each other. I've even heard plenty if knowledgable pro gun folks opine that a semi is more effective as it is easier to use.

We can't have our cake and eat it too.

 

I agree with that.  It is not easy to use a full auto; you need a few grand in ammo downrange to get in the practice needed to be effective with it, and countless neophytes ride the recoil up and across to shoot who knows where off into the yonder.   So what?  My copy of the constitution does not say anything about ease of use or training.  It says, as I said above, "arms" and the implication of the time it was written included swords.  If I had to master a weapon well enough to use it effectively, I would much rather do it with an uzi than a sword.   I could, if I had a pile of ammo, figure the uzi out in a week or two.  Swordsmanship takes years of study.

[JAB]

The real problem here is that the Second Amendment was largely intended to guarantee that the People have the ability to defend against a tyrannical government.  The ability to do so was used to allay fears about such a tyrannical Federal government using Federal troops to enforce their will upon the People when the decision was originally being made as to whether or not to have a standing military.  Therefore, the main intent of the Second Amendment was to support the ability of average citizens - the People - to defend against an organized military force.  As such, if these friggin' judges would actually look at history and base their rulings in reality, 'military type' weapons are exactly the type of weapon that the Second Amendment was originally intended to protect.

Edited August 14, 2014 by JAB

[Cruel Hand Luke]

They will never admit that because then the next question is "at what point has it become tyrannical"?....................and the next question is "At what point has the tyranny risen to the level that resistance is called for"?  Those are some very sobering questions for a national political discourse...so there is NO WAY they will EVER admit that.