Ammo For Sale

« « The Republicans are making an effort on guns | Home | Gun Porn » »

Fourth Circuit upholds gun and magazine ban

The Baltimore Sun:

“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 B. King wrote for the court. Four other courts have upheld similar restrictions in other states, King wrote.

You may be convinced but you are wrong.

20 Responses to “Fourth Circuit upholds gun and magazine ban”

  1. Lyle Says:

    They know better. That makes them worse than merely being mistaken. Much worse. They’re liars. They can pretend all they want, but too many of us know better now. They’re usurpers. Pray for justice.

  2. wizardpc Says:

    Didn’t “Miller” say the nfa was constitutional because short barreled shotguns had no military purpose?

  3. rickn8or Says:

    Didn’t President Jackson say “The court has made its’ decision; now let them enforce it”?

  4. Erik Says:

    And Thank You Ted Cruz. Heller’s important parts, like the one the 4th circuit task about, are all from Cruz’s amicus brief. I really can’t stand Canadians and their non Americanism.

  5. SPQR Says:

    What a brazenly dishonest misrepresentation of the Heller opinion’s language.

  6. Mike M. Says:

    The usual claptrap, I’m afraid. The courts clearly are ruling according to their whim, then faking up legalistic rationale to suit.

  7. Patrick Henry, the 2nd Says:

    Garbage decision. It’s clear they had a desired result and twisted Hellers words to achieve it. The dissent makes clear the tricks they played.

  8. Blue Falcon in Boston Says:

    One hopes this garbage gets eviscerated by the supreme court and results in all ‘AWB’ laws being found unconstitutional.

  9. Ron W Says:

    The “fascist” charge is being thrown around a lot now. Well, just substitute the words “Americans”, “police” and “military” here the court agrees:

    “Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”–Heinrich Himmler, Nazi Gestapo Chief

    And BTW,the courts have often cited, “the equal protection of the laws”(14th Amendment) but when will they rule that applies to AWB’s ?

  10. JTC Says:

    Same type of last-gasp obstructionism we see from all the usual suspects…pols, media, academia, celebriturds, and some courts clinging to perceived relevance and acting in self-interest.

    Like the others, time will tell.

  11. Ron W Says:

    @Blue Falcon, agreed! One searches the text of the Constitution in vain to find any delegated power re: what arms the People have a DECLARED RIGHT to acquire, keep or carry. It’s only delegated power pertains to “such part of them (the militia) as may be called into its service and EMPLOYED”. –Article I, Section 8.16 and according to the plain text of the 10th Amendment, without having an enumerated delegated power the Federal Government may do NOTHING!

  12. RAH Says:

    Eventually SCOTUS will get the case and with Gorsuch we have a good chance to overturn the 4 th circuit on this and the carry case.

  13. mikee Says:

    Oddly enough, it was the dissenters (who lost) in Heller who argued that military weapons were not constitutionally protected. Scalia eviscerated their argument in the supposedly binding, winning side of the decision.

    Good to know dissenting opinions are now usable as precedent.

  14. Mike W. Says:

    Wow. Heller said this

    “The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

    Nowhere in his opinion did Scalia say that “military weapons” weren’t protected.

  15. Joe Says:

    10-4 decision… thats 10 judges that need to be impeached.

    If we dont cleanse the court real quick this whole republic thing is over.

  16. Deaf Smith Says:

    ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’..

    But ‘A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State’, hence those arms ARE what the Constitution desired citizens to have.

  17. Patrick Henry, the 2nd Says:

    The best part of the dissent was how they said (paraphrasing):

    The majority’s ruling allows banning AR15s but not M1 Garands which was a standard issue rifle for the military in WWII. So the “military like” doctrine allows banning rifles the military doesn’t use but doesn’t allow banning rifles the military actually used in war.

  18. Sigivald@gmail.com Says:

    “Lulz we didn’t actually even read Heller or have any idea what a gun even is.”

  19. Kevin Baker Says:

    @wizardpc: No, what Miller actually said was that they had no information on whether a “shotgun have a barrel of less than 18 inches” could be considered a militia weapon. This was because there was no representation on Miller’s side of the case, as Miller could not be found, and nobody was going to pay his lawyer to show up. So the Supreme Court reversed the District court’s decision and remanded it to the lower court for “finding.”

    Which never happened.

    Which raises the rather fascinating question of what would have happened had Miller possessed a Browning Automatic Rifle rather than his $5 shotgun. The BAR was standard equipment for Army infantry platoons at the time.

  20. Patrick Says:

    ATF is considering a regulatory change that declares the AR-15 as the “Modern Sporting Rifle” and putting it firmly into the sporting use category for importation of parts, etc.

    Congress is also talking legislation declaring them sporting-purpose and then using the commerce clause to force the matter. As much as we all hate the over-use of the Commerce Clause generally, this is an actual case of interstate commerce being thwarted by the politics of a minority of states. In other words…one of the actual intended purposes of the Commerce Clause. Go figure.

    Both are needed.