ARs “Fall Outside Second Amendment”, Says US District Judge

[JohnAL]

United States District Judge Catherine C. Blake has made a ruling in the Marlyand assault weapons ban lawsuit, Outdoor Wire reports:



“Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual. First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population. The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.
As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.
Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.
Nevertheless, the court need not resolve whether the banned assault weapons and [large capacity magazines] are useful or commonly used for lawful purposes, see Woollard, 712 F.3d at 875–76 (making clear that courts need not decide the infringement issue to rule on Second Amendment claims), and will assume, although not decide, that the Firearm Safety Act places some burden on the Second Amendment right. See Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1260–6.”
- See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...mBlog+(The+Firearm+Blog)#sthash.ItuVsPRP.dpuf

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...paign=Feed:+TheFirearmBlog+(The+Firearm+Blog)

 

[FrankT]

I saw that, sickening and so that is how it begins!

 

[Famine]

NRA will have to have the decision appealed and at some point there will be a judge with a brain making the decision...I can't believe how she decided to interpret the 2nd Amendment.

 

[MarkS]

The statement "Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions." shows her total unfamiliarity with firearms. This decision needs to be appealed ASAP

 

[donr101395]

The statement "Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions." shows her total unfamiliarity with firearms. This decision needs to be appealed ASAP

Agreed and in the mean time someone who lives there should use her words to get the local and state police departments to turn in their offensive weapons since the police force is not an offensive force.
I don't want to see police unarmed, but that is one way to bring to light he obvious ignorance of not only guns, but the constitution and her lack of common sense.

 

[Mr. Katanga]

Agreed and in the mean time someone who lives there should use her words to get the local and state police departments to turn in their offensive weapons since the police force is not an offensive force.
I don't want to see police unarmed, but that is one way to bring to light he obvious ignorance of not only guns, but the constitution and her lack of common sense.

I was thinking the same thing, cops carry high cap handguns and hi cap ARs on regular traffic patrols, so they are an offensive military force by her full on retard reasoning. I wonder how many evil assault rifles are protecting the courthouse where she is taking a shit on the constitution.

 

[Snow Bird]

The bad thing about judges is that they bring there own bias in to the law.

 

[ilintner]

I saw this on the firearm blog yesterday, her ignorance and ridiculous argument would almost be comical... if she weren't a Judge making a ruling supporting the restriction of constitutional freedom.

 

[Crazydoc68]

Then I guess the internet does too. Since it wasn't around during that time frame. Along with all other modern ways of communicating.

You never go full retard!!!

 

[barebones1]

hate to quote but....... 2nd amendment was created to prevent the following, from ever happening again.



Administrative and Regulatory Law News (American Bar Association). Vol.
37, no. 4, Summer 2012. More by Kopel on the
right to arms in the Founding
Era.

This
Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American
Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75
confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate
the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political
tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into
the scope of the modern Second Amendment.


Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the
Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to
Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to
enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain
attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we
leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in
Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was
necessarily illegitimate.


The Royal
Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from
taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up
an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and
the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the
area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.


Military
rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000
troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in
the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans
of gunpowder.


Modern
“smokeless” gunpowder is stable under most conditions. The “black powder” of the
18th Century was far more volatile. Accordingly, large quantities of black
powder were often stored in a town’s “powder house,” typically a reinforced
brick building. The powder house would hold merchants’ reserves, large
quantities stored by individuals, as well as powder for use by the local
militia. Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all
householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder,
not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied
“public arms” and powder to individual militiamen. Policies varied on whether
militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at home. Public arms
would often be stored in a special armory, which might also be the powder house.


Before dawn
on September 1, 1774, 260 of Gage’s Redcoats sailed up the Mystic River and
seized hundreds of barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house.


The “Powder
Alarm,” as it became known, was a serious provocation. By the end of the day,
20,000 militiamen had mobilized and started marching towards Boston. In
Connecticut and Western Massachusetts, rumors quickly spread that the Powder
Alarm had actually involved fighting in the streets of Boston. More accurate
reports reached the militia companies before that militia reached Boston, and so
the war did not begin in September. The message, though, was unmistakable: If
the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat
that violent seizure as an act of war, and would fight. And that is exactly what
happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.


Five days
after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester
County assembled on the Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the
Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the
resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from
the Royal Governor. The officers promptly resigned and then received new
commissions from the Worcester Convention.


That same
day, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted
the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point Resolves complained about the Powder Alarm,
and then took control of the local militia away from the Royal Governor (by
replacing the Governor’s appointed officers with officers elected by the
militia) and resolved to engage in group practice with arms at least weekly.



The First
Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously
endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies
to help the Bostonians.


Governor
Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and
ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s
offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and
Ammunition.”


When the
Massachusetts Assembly convened, General Gage declared it illegal, so the
representatives reassembled as the “Provincial Congress.” On October 26, 1774,
the Massachusetts Provincial Congress adopted a resolution condemning military
rule, and criticizing Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large
quantities of ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.” The Provincial Congress
urged all militia companies to organize and elect their own officers. At least a
quarter of the militia (the famous Minute Men) were directed to “equip and hold
themselves in readiness to march at the shortest notice.” The Provincial
Congress further declared that everyone who did not already have a gun should
get one, and start practicing with it diligently.