Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules
Source:
The Bay Net
URL Source: http://www.thebaynet.com/news/peopl ... sault-weapons-court-rules.html
Published: Feb 5, 2016
Author: Cristian Farias
Post Date: 2016-02-05 10:00:07 by misterwhite
Keywords: None
Views: 7819
Comments: 46
In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state's prohibition on what the court called "the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens" amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution. "In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment -- the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home," Chief Judge William Traxler wrote in the divided ruling. Provisions that outlaw these firearms, Traxler wrote, "substantially burden this fundamental right." Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who recently suspended his Democratic presidential campaign, signed Maryland's Firearm Safety Act of 2013 in the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, which spurred similar initiatives in other Democratic-leaning states. The legislation mostly targets specific kinds of semi-automatic firearms -- such as AR-15s and AK-47s -- and large-capacity magazines, and adds certain registration and licensing requirements. But gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, quickly moved to challenge these laws in the courts, claiming that the restrictions they imposed on lawful gun ownership were overly broad and weren't proven to save lives. “"This case was a major victory for the NRA and gun rights advocates." The legal attacks have largely failed. Last October, a federal appeals court in Manhattan upheld the most iconic of these laws -- those passed in New York and Connecticut in direct response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. And in December, the Supreme Court declined to review a ruling out of Illinois that upheld a similar ban on assault weapons. The high court's reluctance to intervene in these disputes has left the Second Amendment in a bit of a state of flux. Since the Supreme Court established in 2008 and 2010 that the amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for self-defense within the home, judges have struggled to apply those decisions to the newer spate of gun legislation. And inconsistent rulings and standards across the country have left the scope of the law unclear. When the Supreme Court refused to take up the Illinois case, Justice Clarence Thomas complained that the Second Amendment was being relegated to "a second-class right." "If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing," he wrote, and added that those earlier decisions enshrining the right to gun ownership shouldn't be expected to "clarify the entire field." The lack of clarity since then underscores why Thursday's decision may be a boon to those who want to see a broader interpretation of the Second Amendment, setting the stage for the next Supreme Court confrontation. "This case was a major victory for the NRA and gun rights advocates," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA who specializes in Second Amendment law. "This opinion is an important one because it subjects important gun control laws to the most strict form of judicial scrutiny." Indeed, the biggest surprise in Chief Judge Traxler's 66-page opinion is the words "strict scrutiny," a stringent constitutional test that most government laws and regulations fail. Other courts have applied more forgiving standards to similar gun legislation and upheld it. The 4th Circuit's decision didn't outright strike down the Maryland legislation. Instead, it instructed a lower court to subject the provision to the higher legal standard, meaning more litigation and the possibility of a future showdown at the Supreme Court -- though maybe not yet, according to Winkler. As if to illustrate the volatile politics and legalities of gun control, dissenting Circuit Judge Robert King all but declared that the court's ruling would lead to the next mass shooting. "Let's be real," King wrote. "The assault weapons banned by Maryland's [law] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war."
—Adam Winkler, UCLA law professor
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-5) not displayed.
.
.
.
#6. To: Roscoe (#1)
Original intent went out the window with the Heller decision when the court decreed that the second amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms in common use at the time for self-defense within the home. Now the 4th Circuit is saying, "Within that context, apply strict scrutiny". This means the lower court must determine if the law is a) justified by a compelling governmental interest, b) narrowly tailored to achieve that goal, and c) the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Given that "assault weapons" are not used in many crimes, I doubt the law will hold up.
And you should be prohibited from driving a car around you neighborhood because walking is plenty good for running errands. The Wizard has spoken!! потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Trains are definitely OUT, they're weapons of mass destruction! I guess we better go out & buy one before they change their mind. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood
Got one for Christmas. Love it.
These new slide-fire (bump-fire) replacement stocks give you very close to machine-fire rates, just by changing out the stock. Fully legal, no special federal license required. They've been around for some years now. These work on nearly all the semi-auto rifles on the market. Uploaded on Feb 23, 2012 Showing and shooting the Slide Fire Solutions bump fire stock on a Colt M4 Carbine and on a Thureon Defense 9mm Carbine. We switch it out on camera and show you how it attaches. We do break a firing pin on the 9mm, but the show goes on!!! The weird thing is, as you can tell, I'm just not sure what's going on with the 9mm rifle. Don't think I've ever experienced a broken firing pin on anything, so it does not even occur to me when things are not seeming to work correctly. Good excuse to shoot more 5.56 ! No problem, another firing pin is on the way. http://www.slidefire.com/ http://www.thureondefense.com/ http://www.colt.com/
Got one for Christmas. Love it. You guys, save maybe lefto Willie Boy, are missing the big picture here. ALL guns are useless without ammo. Guess what Big Brother will target if it sees that it can get away with it. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I have been saying that for years. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood
These new slide-fire (bump-fire) replacement stocks give you very close to machine-fire rates, just by changing out the stock. Fully legal, no special federal license required. All the more reason to make semi-autos just as difficult to legally own as the fully autos.
Funny love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Fixed it - you're welcome. "we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie. "Listen piece of shit. Call me anti American again and your're banned. I don't like you." - aka stoned -
Good thing you are not in charge !
Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood
Talking about yourself ? Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood
I need a few more years to finish being pissed off.
Nobody needs commuter trains to put venison on the table.
Thanks for asking, I'm a quite happily married heterosexual, you'll have to solicit the other posters for what you're lusting after..... "we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie. "Listen piece of shit. Call me anti American again and your're banned. I don't like you." - aka stoned -
white .... as always, you are an absolute idiot.
That explains why you brought it up. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood
If this does go to the Supreme Court, it's possible that 5 liberal justices could rule otherwise. Then we are truly f**ked. ---- misterwhite white .... as always, you are an absolute idiot. --- buckeroo The 2nd is not about whether an AR-15 or an AK-47 is not your ideal weapon for self- defense in the home. --- SCOTUS 'opinions', -- just like misterwhite's opinions, -- simply don't make a damn bit of difference in our inalienable basic rights.. -- SCOTUS can 'rule' against them, but we can never lose them.. And only an idiot like white thinks SCOTUS decisions can fuck them away.
In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms a) in common use b) for self-defense c) within the home. Only an idiot would think that ruling would prevent 5 liberal justices from concluding second amendment protection does not include an AR-15 or an AK-47. They can very easily say that those weapons are not that common, that they are variants of military weapons, and they are dangerous as home self-defense weapons due to the penetrating power of the bullet. You think they wouldn't? I give you their idiotic decisions of Roe v Wade, Kelo, and Obamacare. Their many decisions using the Commerce Clause as justification. And using the 14th amendment to apply their decisions to the states. Yet you persist in thinking that any future court decision will be favorable to your viewpoint. Who's the idiot, idiot?
Maybe that's what he actually wants.
Heller was bad enough, but at least that decision was confined to Washington, DC. But McDonald v. Chicago took that a step further and extended Heller to every state and every city. All this to force one city in one state to allow one individual to own a handgun. He died (illness) four years after the decision, by the way. All those state constitutions that had their own second amendment protections? Rip them up. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution now protects your gun rights and the second amendment will be forever interpreted and defined by 5 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. The sad part? This is what gun owners wanted. The gun-grabbers have got to be laughing their asses off.
It's even worse than that. When the Court remanded in McDonald v. Chicago, they gave little in the way of defining their murky judicial modification of the Second Amendment. Black-robed pissants as low down the ladder as individual Federal District Court judges will now interpret the 2nd/14th mutation guided by their personal feelings and policy preferences. Ad hoc all the way.
I think the gun grabbers are switching tactics. Rather than trying to ban guns (which just isn't going to happen), they're focusing on the mental health of gun owners. I mean, people have to be mentally ill to shoot other people, right? Oh, they're starting with reasonable demands -- adjudicated mentally ill or committed involuntarily to a mental institution. And people nod their heads and say, "Sure. That's reasonable." But we all know about liberal incrementalism. We've all seen how the laws have expanded concerning smoking, BAC levels, the definition of rape, the definition of sexual harassment, the definition of racism, and on and on. So, I would not be surprised one day to see the law include people who were diagnosed with ADD when they were 8-years- old. Ar anyone who is (or was) depressed. Or anyone who voted for Trump.
Well, it seems as if once again you are conflating two things as if they were the same. The supremes have had a checkered past, but most all the cases ever brought before it regarding 2A have been to reign in local infringements. The only thing I can guess from all the gnashing of teeth you and your ilk do when this happens is to assume you like local infringements. When the high court steps in and stops places from disarming the populace, people should cheer. 'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
True. As with every other law. Meaning we'll have a mish-mash of laws until the conflicts are resolved by the USSC. One-size-fits-all is a painful process. They hate the concept of federalism.
And until McDonald, the supremes have told them to piss up a rope because the second amendment imposed a limit on federal laws only. States were guided by state constitutions and the state supreme court resolved disputes. "The only thing I can guess from all the gnashing of teeth you and your ilk do when this happens is to assume you like local infringements." Nope. I like laws written at the lowest level possible. This way if I don't like a city law I can move to another city. Or if I don't like a state law I can move to another state. But when Washington D.C. writes a law I don't like, I have nowhere to go. Assuming it doesn't violate the state constitution, if the citizens of a city or a state don't want guns, who are we to tell them they're wrong? The beauty of our form of government is that the citizens decide how they will live together.
Don't. Facts trigger him/her.
Mob rule is certainly something you seem to support.
'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
It seems you're wrong.
Hey Cuck, I merely point out that every time the supremes REIGN IN, local governments, tighty whitey has a cow. Facts are stubborn. You are useless. 'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
"It’s sad to see the Democrats take a horrific crime and try to use it as an excuse not to go after people with serious mental illness..." --Ted Cruz Cruz would sign the law. The midwit might even try to add it to the rewrite of the Bill of the of Rights he dreams about.
Until McDonald, they didn't crap on the 2nd Amendment and didn't attempt to reign over the states' police powers. They acted like a Court, rather than black-robed philosopher princes and princesses. But then they gave you Constitution-haters something to cheer about.
The full quote makes more sense: "It's sad to see the Democrats take a horrific crime and try to use it as an excuse -- not to go after people with serious mental illness or people who are repeat felons or criminals -- but instead try to use it as an excuse to take away Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens," he told a group of reporters." Your conclusion, however, is still spot on. The term "mental illness" can be defined as loosely as people want.
As Cruz knows.
The 2nd is not about whether an AR-15 or an AK-47 is not your ideal weapon for self- defense in the home. --- SCOTUS 'opinions', -- just like misterwhite's opinions, -- simply don't make a damn bit of difference in our inalienable basic rights.. -- SCOTUS can 'rule' against them, but we can never lose them.. And only an idiot like white thinks SCOTUS decisions can fuck them away. The 'penetrating power of the bullet', -- In ALL weapons, - depends upon cartridge loaded and used. -- 'Home defense loads' can be purchased by the misterwhite/SarahBrady crowd if needed. And if '5 liberal justices' conclude that second amendment protection does not include an AR-15 or an AK-47, - - State legislatures can specify that such arms are legal, --effectively ignoring and nullifying the SCOTUS opinion in that specific State..
And if '5 liberal justices' conclude that second amendment protection does not include an AR-15 or an AK-47, - - State legislatures can specify that such arms are legal, --effectively ignoring and nullifying the SCOTUS opinion in that specific State.. Indeed they can. Just like states are doing with the federal prohibition on pot. If looked at long enough, whiteys pattern emerges, Feds override state overreach, he freaks out. When states try to go rogue against the federal government, as in WA and CO legalizing pot, he freaks out. Whenever control is constricted or freedoms are expanded, whitey is there screaming his tiny little head off. 'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
Whenever control is constricted or freedoms are expanded, whitey is there screaming his tiny little head off. Misterwhite/robertpaulsen is above all, -- an authoritarian, melded with fascistic/communitarian tendencies. -- He pretends to be a conservative, - and only a mental heath professional could tell you why.. Altogether, we can agree, -- he's a nasty bit of work.
This is certainly good news but I just don't understand why the NRA is complaining about this. I think that's why I stopped sending them money for support because they don't support this assault gun ownership at all.
When we get a justice department which respects and enforces the laws written by the people, we'll see.
The NRA was complaining about the law which restricted ownership of "assault rifles". A three-judge panel for the 4th Circuit overturned that law as unconstitutional.
"So much for original intent."
#7. To: Willie Green, TooConservative (#4)
Besides, bolt-action is plenty good for hunting anyway.
#8. To: SOSO, WMD trains banned (#7)
you should be prohibited from driving a car around you neighborhood because walking is plenty good for running errands
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#9. To: misterwhite (#0)
" People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules "
#10. To: Stoner (#9)
"I guess we better go out & buy one before they change their mind."
#11. To: Willie Green (#4)
There's no reason that the same restrictions placed on fully-auto machine guns can't be placed on the semi-auto variety.
#12. To: misterwhite, Willie Green, TooConservtaive, Stoner (#10)
"I guess we better go out & buy one before they change their mind."
#13. To: SOSO (#12)
" ALL guns are useless without ammo. Guess what Big Brother will target if it sees that it can get away with it. "
#14. To: TooConservative (#11)
Nobody needs that much lead to put venison on the table. They'd just be destroying good meat.
#15. To: Willie Green (#14)
Venison
boris
#16. To: misterwhite (#0)
People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To over-compensate for their small penises, Court Rules....
#17. To: Willie Green (#14)
#18. To: Jameson (#16)
" small penises "
#19. To: misterwhite (#6)
Original intent went out the window with the Heller decision
#20. To: Willie Green (#14)
Nobody needs that much lead to put venison on the table.
#21. To: Stoner (#18)
#22. To: misterwhite (#5)
If this does go to the Supreme Court, it's possible that 5 liberal justices could rule otherwise. Then we are truly f**ked.
#23. To: Jameson (#21)
" you'll have to solicit the other posters for what you're lusting after....."
#24. To: buckeroo, and the idiotic misterwhite. (#22)
Heller was a very narrow decision, protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms a) in common use b) for self-defense c) within the home. An AR-15 or an AK-47 is not your ideal weapon for self- defense in the home.
#25. To: buckeroo (#22)
"white .... as always, you are an absolute idiot."
#26. To: misterwhite (#25)
Only an idiot would think that ruling would prevent 5 liberal justices from concluding second amendment protection does not include an AR-15 or an AK-47.
#27. To: Roscoe (#19)
"I need a few more years to finish being pissed off."
#28. To: misterwhite (#27)
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution now protects your gun rights and the second amendment will be forever interpreted and defined by 5 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
#29. To: Roscoe (#26)
"Maybe that's what he actually wants."
#30. To: misterwhite (#27)
#31. To: Roscoe (#28)
"Black-robed pissants as low down the ladder as individual Federal District Court judges will now interpret the 2nd/14th mutation guided by their personal feelings and policy preferences."
#32. To: Dead Culture Watch (#30)
"but most all the cases ever brought before it regarding 2A have been to reign in local infringements."
#33. To: misterwhite (#32)
And until McDonald, the supremes have told them to piss up a rope
#34. To: misterwhite (#32)
#35. To: Dead Culture Watch (#34)
"Mob rule is certainly something you seem to support."
#36. To: Roscoe (#33)
#37. To: misterwhite (#29)
So, I would not be surprised one day to see the law include people who were diagnosed with ADD when they were 8-years- old.
#38. To: Dead Culture Watch (#36)
every time the supremes REIGN IN, local governments
#39. To: Roscoe (#37)
#40. To: misterwhite (#39)
The term "mental illness" can be defined as loosely as people want.
#41. To: misterwhite, uses silly 'penetrating' logic (#25)
Heller was a very narrow decision, protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms a) in common use b) for self-defense c) within the home. An AR-15 or an AK-47 is not your ideal weapon for self- defense in the home. --- If this does go to the Supreme Court, it's possible that 5 liberal justices could rule otherwise. Then we are truly f**ked. ---- misterwhite
"Only an idiot would think that ruling would prevent 5 liberal justices from concluding second amendment protection does not include an AR-15 or an AK-47. They can very easily say that those weapons are not that common, that they are variants of military weapons, and they are dangerous as home self-defense weapons due to the penetrating power of the bullet."
#42. To: tpaine (#41)
#43. To: Dead Culture Watch, (#42)
If looked at long enough, whiteys pattern emerges, Feds override state overreach, he freaks out. When states try to go rogue against the federal government, as in WA and CO legalizing pot, he freaks out.
#44. To: misterwhite (#0)
#45. To: Dead Culture Watch (#42)
"Indeed they can. Just like states are doing with the federal prohibition on pot."
#46. To: goldilucky (#44)
"This is certainly good news but I just don't understand why the NRA is complaining about this."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]