Bad News From the 4th Circuit

[Riot]

"... if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

-Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Papers #29

 

[whitney]

The decision by the majority in this case is the same decision AG Ferguson was trying to push on Washingtonians with his proposed gun ban. Most of the arguments are based on the Supreme court Heller decision.

I would urge everyone to read the court decision. http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf
If you do not want to read it all just jump to page 64 and start up there skipping the footnotes.

Here; I'll get you started.
In our analysis, we simply de-emphasize the term "dangerous and unusual," more directly concluding under Heller that, because the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are "like" "M-16 rifles" and "most useful in military service," they are beyond the reach of the Second Amendment. Consequently, the problem for the plaintiffs is not that they have been deprived of an ample opportunity to squarely meet the issue of whether the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are most useful in military service. Instead, the plaintiffs' problem is that, despite full notice of the issue, they have not and apparently cannot forecast evidence adequately helpful to their cause. Meanwhile, the State's evidence readily establishes that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are most useful in military service, causing us to neither employ our own "military opinion" nor abandon the summary judgment standard to rule as we do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Both sides believe they are right and the only way it will be settled is in Supreme Court should they decide to hear it.
I would like to think the dissenting opinion makes the most sense constitutionally as well as logically, yet we all know there are such things as "activist judges".

This ruling should serve as the example and impetus for all liberty and freedom minded folks to take an active role in defending the same.

~Whitney

 

[whitney]

View attachment 344645

Curious if the blackbirds would consider this a military style rifle?

Considering it has a bolt and is not self loading the answer is no.
This rifle has laid up soldiers like cord-wood and is a perfect example of the knowledge or lack thereof by the lawmakers.
It is incumbent upon all of us to inform them.

Example; The Colt 1911 model hand gun was originally designed for use in close combat war time fighting and proven effective in the Philippine campaigns. This same handgun is not considered an "assault weapon" as it holds less than the proscribed cartridges and lacks the scary features that make it exclusive to "battlefield conditions".

Example; The mini-14 compared to the M-1 Garand, we could go on all day.

~Whitney

 

[Stomper]

Make no mistake, those elitist "red", "blue", and "blackbird" mother-bubblegummers know EXACTLY what they are doing....

It don't wash you elitist yarseholes!

 

[etrain16]

This just goes beyond explanation...

American citizens stripped of their fundamental Civil Rights and the courts upholding that stripping...

Yet we have federally funded programs to hand out clean needles to street junkies and safe places for them to shoot up their illegal drugs...

Am I the only one that see the irony in this????

Yeah!! If I'm a gun addict, how come the government isn't handing out free magazines and ammo while paying my range fees? Wouldn't they conclude if we have safe places to shoot, it would reduce gun violence? Just as handing out free needles increases...I mean, reduces, drug use??

 

[11Charlie]

Yeah!! If I'm a gun addict, how come the government isn't handing out free magazines and ammo while paying my range fees? Wouldn't they conclude if we have safe places to shoot, it would reduce gun violence? Just as handing out free needles increases...I mean, reduces, drug use??

You and @Stomper should get together run for office and fix all this. I would donate to the cause

 

[etrain16]

You and @Stomper should get together run for office and fix all this. I would donate to the cause

Never work - they couldn't handle the truth!! Or the awesome

 

[11Charlie]

Never work - they couldn't handle the truth!! Or the awesome

You gotta admit it would be the perfect combo of awesomeness

 

[etrain16]

You gotta admit it would be the perfect combo of awesomeness

But who would be on top...of the ticket??

Probably have to be @Stomper, President Stomper would sound better than President Etrain.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I don't think they understand anything! I mean how can they when they don't know there azz from a hole in the ground

You've hit on the real question here. It seems nobody involved is aware of the reasons for the design features of an AR-15 rifle.

I was going to write an analysis of this decision when I got around to it, but simply put, they don't understand the design of the AR-15 rifle, nor the reasons for the "military" features.

An AR-15 is "like an M16" only in that its "military" features are hold-overs from when the platform was designed as a "select fire", military weapon capable of full automatic firing mode. That is, the things that make an AR-15 "like an M-16" are presently cosmetic and do nothing to make it more lethal or "most useful on the battlefield". They serve no purpose (or very little) on a semi-automatic-only firearm. The hand guard, fore and aft pistol grips, etc. are designed to make a fully automatic firearm more manageable. They make no practical difference on an AR-15 capable only of semi-automatic firing mode. It makes no sense to "spray fire" (presumably shoot from the hip while not using the sights) a semi-automatic weapon. Therefor, the fact that it has a wrap around handguard to prevent burns when "spray firing", or a vertical grip beneath it to accomplish the same purpose is of little functional value.

The aft-positioned, pistol grip trigger housing is there only because the recoil buffer gets in the way of a conventional grip arrangement, and the recoil buffer's main purpose is to make the firearm manageable in full auto mode. It also is of little value on a semi-automatic firearm. The aft-positioned pistol grip trigger housing is simply an accommodation of the need for a recoil buffer when firing in full automatic mode. It does not add any lethal functionality to the semi-automatic firearm.

These features then are virtually purely cosmetic, such that if an AR-15 is "like an M-16" in function, which is their argument, then the only way in which it is "like an M-16" in function is that both CAN fire in semi-automatic mode. Everything else is cosmetic. Carried to its logical conclusion, this means that EVERY semi-automatic firearm is "like an M-16". And if EVERY semi-automatic firearm is "like an M-16", and we are banning firearms which are "like an M-16", then we are banning a whole class of firearms, which would greatly burden the rights enumerated under the 2nd Amendment. That would require STRICT scrutiny of the statute by the court, such as the USSC applied to a prohibition on all handguns under Heller. This court did not apply strict scrutiny in this case. They applied INTERMEDIATE scrutiny. Strict scrutiny would require a much closer fit of the alleged governmental interest to the proposed remedy. I believe such a ban would fail strict scrutiny, and be ruled unconstitutional.

It will take several pages and a couple days of writing to lay it out formally, but I think once it's done I'll send it off to the NRA-ILA. Maybe somebody will read it.

 

[RicInOR]

4th Circuit Upholds Maryland's 'Assault Weapon' Ban

 

[CountryGent]

I see the ruling only briefly references the infamous SCOTUS case of United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174) (1939). The one that set this precedent:

2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

With that reasoning, wouldn't an AR-pattern rifle, arguably, be the most protected? After all, the military, including the National Guard, issues various M16-type rifles and carbines.

Naw, evidently, firearms can be regulated, taxed, or outright banned for either being not enough or too much of a military arm.

 

[wired]

I see the ruling only briefly references the infamous SCOTUS case of United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174) (1939). The one that set this precedent:

​

With that reasoning, wouldn't an AR-pattern rifle, arguably, be the most protected? After all, the military, including the National Guard, issues various M16-type rifles and carbines.

Naw, evidently, firearms can be regulated, taxed, or outright banned for either being not enough or too much of a military arm.

Which is why Heller , while celebrated as a victory for our side at the time, really put the writing on the wall as to the direction the courts were heading in interpreting the 2nd amendment. No longer were they saying the 2nd was only there to protect the citizens from the government or to allow for an emergency militia against a foreign attack or internal insurrection. As of Heller the 2nd was there to allow you to protect yourself and your family. Thats all fine and dandy if the other uses for firearms were retained but Heller was pretty clear that that previous interpretation had been usurped by the newer self protection argument.

 

[Stomper]

But who would be on top...of the ticket??

Probably have to be @Stomper, President Stomper would sound better than President Etrain.

LOL, we would run out of missiles within the first week.

 

[Jacurso]

What difference does it make? Both are supposed to be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Once again people thinking the 2nd is about protecting ones home, and not realizing it is for protection from the government and should be of equal force that the government could use. I would be OK with this ruling if all government entities in this region were held to the same standard.

 

[PaulB47]

So Miller says non-military arms are not protected, and the 4th Circuit says military arms are not protected. End result, nothing is protected. The 2nd Amendment must be window-dressing, I guess.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

The decision by the majority in this case is the same decision AG Ferguson was trying to push on Washingtonians with his proposed gun ban. Most of the arguments are based on the Supreme court Heller decision.

I would urge everyone to read the court decision. http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf
If you do not want to read it all just jump to page 64 and start up there skipping the footnotes.

Here; I'll get you started.
In our analysis, we simply de-emphasize the term "dangerous and unusual," more directly concluding under Heller that, because the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are "like" "M-16 rifles" and "most useful in military service," they are beyond the reach of the Second Amendment. Consequently, the problem for the plaintiffs is not that they have been deprived of an ample opportunity to squarely meet the issue of whether the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are most useful in military service. Instead, the plaintiffs' problem is that, despite full notice of the issue, they have not and apparently cannot forecast evidence adequately helpful to their cause. Meanwhile, the State's evidence readily establishes that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are most useful in military service, causing us to neither employ our own "military opinion" nor abandon the summary judgment standard to rule as we do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Both sides believe they are right and the only way it will be settled is in Supreme Court should they decide to hear it.
I would like to think the dissenting opinion makes the most sense constitutionally as well as logically, yet we all know there are such things as "activist judges".

This ruling should serve as the example and impetus for all liberty and freedom minded folks to take an active role in defending the same.

~Whitney

The decision by the majority in this case is the same decision AG Ferguson was trying to push on Washingtonians with his proposed gun ban. Most of the arguments are based on the Supreme court Heller decision.

I would urge everyone to read the court decision. http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf
If you do not want to read it all just jump to page 64 and start up there skipping the footnotes.

Here; I'll get you started.
In our analysis, we simply de-emphasize the term "dangerous and unusual," more directly concluding under Heller that, because the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are "like" "M-16 rifles" and "most useful in military service," they are beyond the reach of the Second Amendment. Consequently, the problem for the plaintiffs is not that they have been deprived of an ample opportunity to squarely meet the issue of whether the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are most useful in military service. Instead, the plaintiffs' problem is that, despite full notice of the issue, they have not and apparently cannot forecast evidence adequately helpful to their cause. Meanwhile, the State's evidence readily establishes that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are most useful in military service, causing us to neither employ our own "military opinion" nor abandon the summary judgment standard to rule as we do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Both sides believe they are right and the only way it will be settled is in Supreme Court should they decide to hear it.
I would like to think the dissenting opinion makes the most sense constitutionally as well as logically, yet we all know there are such things as "activist judges".

This ruling should serve as the example and impetus for all liberty and freedom minded folks to take an active role in defending the same.

~Whitney

The language in the majority opinion sounds disturbingly like it was taken straight out of the Bloomberg playbook. If it's not the 4th Circuit itself that is responsible, then it is surely the Maryland governor and AG that are mouthing Bloomberg talking points in their arguments.

 

[jsparks747]

Are they going to say Remington 700s aren't protected by the second amendment since they are military weapons because that means the laws they put on "military style weapons" will apply to them?

 

[jsparks747]

You and @Stomper should get together run for office and fix all this. I would donate to the cause

Let's just say I had a little time off...

 

[11Charlie]

Let's just say I had a little time off...
View attachment 344798

That's Awesome