Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Federal appeals court says assault rifles are ‘weapons of war’ not protected by Second Amendment

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that assault rifles and other so-called “weapons of war” are not protected under the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, which was passed in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. It cited a 2008 Supreme Court case, Heller v. District of Columbia, which said that weapons “most useful in military service” are not covered by the Constitution.

“We 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’ — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach,” Judge Robert King wrote for the 10-4 decision.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”

Citing the Heller case, King wrote that assault rifles are “devastating weapons of war whose only legitimate purpose is to...Read More HERE

3 comments:

  1. So the problem is with the Heller case. It was obviously decided wrongly since the constitution makes no limitations on destructive power or arbitrary definitions of "legitimate uses".

    Trump needs to get a move on in appointing the new judge to hear this case in the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As many times as I have read the words to the second amendment, for the life of me I can not understand how these fucking people can pull this stuff out of their asses with a straight face.

    Militia = combat readiness. Therefore the use of weapons of war are mandatory. The militia = We, The People.
    I rest my case you fucktards.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Third time I have had to type this. If I don't finish it and hit publish, the page reloads all your ads and I have to start over.
    If I were a high court judge, I would see this as a much simpler problem.
    1. Does the NJ law prevent NJ citizens from exercising their 2nd amendment rights under the Constitution? This is a simple yes or no. A NJ law that forbids a type of weapon, without regard for WHY it is forbidden, is lawful under the constitution. This has nothing to do with the Heller case.
    2. The Anti-infringement clause of the 2nd amendment binds the Federal government, not the states. The inalienable right is to have and hold arms. No right exists to hold a particular brand, design, or caliber of arms. So long as any arms of an effective design are reasonably available in the state, the Constitution is not overstepped.
    3. The Federal courts are right to say that the state laws in this case do not violate the constitution. They should not make any claim at all about the laws being wise, effective, or within the precedent set by other decisions. All of that is irrelevant. State legislatures have a right to pass bad laws and are answerable to their citizens for such silliness.

    ReplyDelete