Fed Appeals Court upholds Maryland AR ban

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/02/federal-appeals-court-upholds-maryland-s

This probably won't stand up to a SCOTUS reading now Trump has his pick on there, but in the meantime it'll get right on the tits of several people sorely in need of a nipple-tweaking.

Why should there be a ban on these type of rifles?

Some deeply flawed reasoning in that ruling. TL; DR version: unconstitutional restrictions are unconstitutional.

Good news.

Legislating from the bench.

"Arms" is by definition not carte blanche to own any form of weaponry, or civilians could own missiles. So if you're arguing that a line can't be drawn, it already has.

Arms and ordnance are where the line is drawn. Arms is understood to mean weapons that a single individual can carry and operate. Simply put, anything an individual soldier can carry is also fine for a citizen to own and carry. So yes to "scary" "assault" rifles, no to tube artillery or MLRS or like that.

Civilians have been able to own and operate missiles for decades, btw. There are many model rocketry clubs all around the country.

How many times do we have to go over this?

A missile is not an "arms" under any understanding of the 2nd Amendment. A missile is ordnance.

This ruling is flawed given that all guns could be considered weapons of war.

Wouldn't the missile launcher be considered "arms"?

Can civilians legally own and operate shoulder-mounted missile launchers? A Stinger can be lugged and operated by a single person.

How about mortars, for that matter? RPGs?

If all these are "arms", are they allowed under open carry? If not - why not?

I've always assumed that military grade weapons. That is weapons that have a primarily military application would be banned.

Note, you don't need Stinger MANPADS, mortars, or RPGs to defend yourself or for that matter to resist oppressive government forces.

A 50 caliber rifle can stop most vehicles and even down most unarmored aircraft if used properly.

I believe they are still quite legal.

You're not even worth arguing with given that you will accept nothing that explains the 2nd Amendment and the meaning of arms.

Not a short reply like I made nor a multi-page legal document would persuade you because you're not actually interested in the possibility of being persuaded. You're anti-gun and will push that no matter what questions you're asking. You're not looking for answers. You're just looking to push an agenda.

As it stands, I've yet to hear a consistent argument, let alone a convincing one.

Most commercial fireworks displays consist of shells launched from mortars. So . . .

It does appear from some quick research that even "weapons of war" - even artillery pieces - are not strictly illegal to own, though getting permits for ammo from the ATF is prohibitive, but this shifts the question back to "if you can legally own THAT under the Second Amendment, why can't you legally own X?"

Where X is whatever weapon is too big for your sense of ease concerning civilian ownership. At which point, you've reached the place most of us are in when it comes to ARs or other military-spec weapons.

Fun Fact: The first actual gun ban in the United States was decided in United States vs. Miller in 1933.

Here are some takeaways from that decision.

1. The right to keep and bear arms relates to "a well regulated militia", which means that the 2nd Amendment MUST protect citizens to keep and bear arms of a military sort and of the kind commonly in use by soldiers.
2. Short-barrelled shotguns didn't appear to have a valid military use before the court, which is why the ban was upheld.
3. If the actual defendant had actually attended the trial, and any actual evidence had been introduced, the court would probably have found out that short-barrelled shotguns do indeed have common military use.

This current ruling already goes against long standing judicial precedent.

That is really dumb the way you use truth and logic to completely blow away the guntard idea the founding fathers made owning a gun that was at least a century from invention a sacred part of the constitution. Those guys are on to you.

Of all the amendments in the Constitution, the 2nd is probably most in need of rewriting for detailed clarification as to what it actually means.

I'm wondering whats going to happen when hand held directed energy weapons become a reality. Especially if those weapons originate in the civilian market and not military or law enforcement ones.

Yes, you and your facts and logic are being completely ridiculous. You should shut up and read the meme which has no logic or truth to it, it counters none of the opposing argument, and it has a picture which makes it cheeto in chief friendly.

Nothing legally above phaser type I in civvie hands in the Federation of Kirk's day, you'll note.

From what we saw in the series, at least in terms of one shot at close range, a type I phaser could do just about what a Type II could do. Perhaps the big difference is in range and endurance.

Though "Devil In the Dark" did make it seem that destructiveness was greater with the Type II.

Who was it that worked on TNG that nearly sent security scrambling when they brought a Type II original series phaser through (a gift from a fan). ?

The 2nd prohibits the government from infringing on peoples' rights to keep and bear, explicitly because armed militias are necessary to defend against tyranny.

From that it logically follows that arms suitable for militia use must be protected. From that standpoint, an AR-type rifle must be.

Please, let's not have the arms vs. ordnance nonsense again. If you believe cruise missiles, nerve gas, and C4 are protected, go make that argument. No one in the mainstream on the gun rights side is.

But don't you see, if you support evil assault weapons but not nukes, then you are INCONSISTENT!!! :O :O :O

No, you're hypocritical. Which actually IS fairly consistent for many gun supporters.

No it doesn't need to be rewritten because a) liberals will write it out of existence b)some lawyer will create some bs loophole for the government and c) the meaning is pretty clear for those who know their history. It's been shown many times on this board exactly what the internet and meaning is, it's just liberals are dishonest and like to play games like, @matthunter is doing.

Hell, if you'd told me I could reduce gun deaths by playing games, I'd have hit the Xbox tonight instead of dealing with you.

Okay, enough hair-splitting about what is "military grade/use" and what is not. Let's talk about the ban on the AR-15 (zooming up the popularity charts because it's great for hunting coyotes among other uses). The logic (such as it is) behind this is many massacres have been carried out by criminals/crazy people using semi-auto large magazine capacity weapons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but criminals/crazy people don't give a fuck about a "gun ban" on any particular type of weapon, because as a criminal/crazy person you:
1. aren't allowed to have any gun, be it a pistol, shotgun, rifle, etc. In for a penny, in for a pound as to which gun you are toting.
2. don't give a shit about breaking any gun laws (or laws of any type) since you are about to commit a violent gun crime, from which the repercussions far outweigh any trouble you might get in for using a "banned" gun. Shooting a bunch of people in what normally results in "suicide by cop" pretty much trumps any worries over gun possession charges.

Bear in mind most homicides/armed robberies/suicides/etc. are carried out in Maryland with cheap, simple guns that are still very much readily available in Maryland. Newsflash: if you have to ditch a weapon after a robbing a convenience store do you want to ditch an expensive semi-auto rifle or some piece-of-shit .38 cal pistol you took from your grandmother's closet? Factor in also there will be thousands of homicides committed in Maryland with handguns (easy to conceal) for every homicide committed with an AR-15. You can google these stats, but it won't fit your narrative so I don't see that happening.
So when the smoke clears (no pun intended) this ban will lower the overall violent gun crime rate by .001 percent at best. But hey, whatever makes you sleep at night I guess.

Maryland is not Georgia, but let me bestow some reality upon you: here in Augusta we have several shootings a month....zero with an AR-15. 100 percent of the shootings are with handguns/shotguns/hunting rifles. Damn those "sporting guns" are fucking deadly!
We have a couple of dozen murders a year.....knives, beatings, poison, cheap guns, but zero with an AR-15. There are hundreds of people who own and shoot an AR-15 residing within a 10 mile radius of my house yet zero will ever shoot/kill a human with their AR-15. So what good would it do to ban the AR-15? Could you present a coherent argument as to what would be actually be accomplished by banning one particular class of weapons in the grand scheme of limiting gun violence? Just sayin'