Fed Appeals Court upholds Maryland AR ban

Yeah, I should'a taken that route as well. There's just such staggering ignorance on the anti-gun side, so many lies and distortions and willful stupidity . . .

Don't know who you think you're talking to but I'm not a gun fanatic and I don't have a bunker. Nor do I think an "armed citizenry" in modern times could really resist a government bent on oppression that has the loyalty of most of its armed forces.

I did not say that. Nor have I ever defended slavery. It was a basis of both the southern economy and southern plantation society. Plus it kept blacks from competing with poor southerners for land and jobs.

Besides that northern industries (through business in the south) profited enormously from slavery indirectly.

At the time of the American Civil War, blacks only outnumbered whites in one state. South Carolina.

If YOU want to make the argument that the 2nd protects ordinance, be my guest. It's not MY position, I'm not defending it, and I'm under no obligation to do so.

You can make the claim that any interpretation is as valid as any other because it's arbitrary where the line is drawn, but that's just nonsense; you could as easily say that slander and libel should be protected by the First Amendment because it's just a matter of where the line is drawn.

There are the plain text meaning of the words, the logical implications of the words, historical context, Supreme Court rulings, and common sense to consider.

No, I don't draw the line based on my opinion, I draw the line based on the writings of the framers of the Constitution and several court cases. We all know we've been over this before and we all know you don't care about any of that, so there's really no point in going over it again.

Naaah, that would make too much sense.

It means swords as well.

Arms as in what soldiers would carry into battle. Swords, knives, and guns. Pikes too but I don't think Pikes were in use when the 2nd Amendment rolled in.

Pitchforks are farm tools and the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to them. Ban away.

The first Sheriff in America is believed to have been Captain William Stone in 1634. The first elected sheriff was William Waters in 1652.

Law enforcement has been around as long as America has been around.

So no there are no violations.

"Arms" means what we call today "small arms:" individual weapons. "To bear arms" means "to carry a weapon."

Same can be said for the pro-gun side. Just because we think control and regulations are necessary for such deadly weapons, doesn't mean we want to "take your guns away". The pro-gun side will just as ignorantly and willfully lie and distort arguments with just as much willful stupidity.

Suitcase nuke?

Again, you're arguing "common sense delineation" but my common sense draws the line differently to yours. Unless the law codifies it, we're down to interpretation. And if you ARE gonna let the law codify it, don't screech UNCONSTITUTIONAL! if it delineates in a manner you don't like.

For the record, I'm not entirely anti-gun: I can see merit in an argument for handguns for self-defence, but I see no merit in a right to own guns. If the UK were to re-allow them, they should be subject to requirements for mandatory training and mental health assessment.

We on the gun side believe "take your guns away" because you're a liar.

So is Matthunter, and Kilometre, and all the other lefties.

You all are dishonest on the subject of control and regulations. Your goal is to remove guns from society but you know you can't come out and say it. You've got to work your way too it.

This thread is proof of it. We've got idiots arguing that missiles that can be carried by one person constitute small arms. Hell the biggest idiot in this thread just brought up suitcase nukes. He's bringing this stuff up to help continue to redraw the line on "military" stuff. His line of reasoning is the exact reason this court made this idiotic decision. He doesn't want to actually own a suitcase nuke but much like the vaunted Overton Window he's trying to push everything to an eventual total gun ban. Just like you.

The interpretation was already done decades ago. Arms means things like knives, swords, guns. It doesn't mean explosives and it sure as hell doesn't mean nuclear weapons.

You're a liar. You don't care about the second amendment - or any for that matter. You just want to be able to keep your guns because you have mistaken them for a penis. You don't give a damn if someone else is killed or harmed. You only care about what you want.

Well, ya better get on to the guys who wrote the START treaty and let them know it should be STORT, Zombie, old pal.

But with the First Amendment, as with the Second Amendment, there is very clearly a line being drawn. It's not an arbitrary line; there is a clear rationale for drawing the line, and there is reasonable disagreement over where the line should actually be drawn. One side of the line (49.5%) is reasonable/constitutional exercise of both rights (e.g. pistols), the other side of the line (49.5) is unreasonable/unconstitutional exercise of both rights (e.g. bazookas and nukes). The line itself (1%) is a murky gray area, which we are at now with the assault rifle ban. I agree with you that "the right to bear arms" means small weapons. However, that is not what is being advocated in this thread; rather, the pro-gun stance seems to be wanting to extend that definition to include large, technologically advanced military-style weaponry (e.g. assault rifles). By your own defintion, that is impermissible under the 2nd Amendment. I agree that weapons such as handguns and shotguns are permissible, and I am in no way arguing that those should be taken away (despite what @Zombie's irrational ranting might have you believe). But the type of gun being discussed here does not, in my opinion (and seemingly in yours), fall on the permissible side of the line.

While I was researching Bazooka ownership and came across this. Apparently you can still own a grenade launcher.
http://www.online-paralegal-programs.com/10-crazy-weapons-that-are-still-legal-in-the-us/

Also, there's this.


http://reason.com/archives/2007/08/16/the-right-to-own-a-bazooka#slide4

You're a lunatic. Where have I advocated all guns being removed from society? I have always taken the consistent position that small arms are permissible, but large military-style arms are impermissible.

Do you have any writings where the framers advocated that the Federal government could prevent states from regulating firearms? And which cases, specifically, have found that the Federal government is permitted to deny states the right to regulate firearms? I would honestly like to read any legally binding support you have for your position.

Nope, I'm not playing this game with you. We are talking about a violation of the second amendment by a state, we are not arguing that the states can't create regulations.

Let me rephrase my question, then. What writings by the Framers and/or binding case law do you have that supports your position that this is a 2nd Amendment violation by the state of Maryland?

Ugh, all of this has happened before...
And if you're going to not read it because it's too long, then I don't think I can help you any further. I would focus on the quote I provided from Madison.
http://wordforge.net/index.php?threads/leftforge-doesnt-understand-the-second-amendment.107376/

So Federalist 46 is all you have? First, I don't disagree that the right to bear arms and the militia are an interconnected aspect of the 2nd Amendment, nor do I disagree with the policy rationale behind the 2nd Amendment.

But ultimately, that isn't what we are talking about. Let's assume for a moment that I agree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to include assault rifles.

Federalist 46 doesn't stand for what you think it stands for. Hell, Federalist 46 was Madison specifically arguing against the Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is a part. He believed the states should be charged with guaranteeing such rights, not the Federal government. From Federalist 46:

"If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone.
***
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm.
***
On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them."

Hence my question about states regulating firearms. Isn't the state of Maryland's regulation of firearms the very conduct that Madison favored?

So it basically still comes down to, "this rifle looks scary, we should ban it." It's not a military rifle, it's a small arm. As for the rest as @Paladin has pointed out time and time again, in order to secure a free state, an individual right to bear arms logically follows.

So, it basically still comes down to "I'm not gonna address your argument because waaaaa gun-grabbers!!!"

No, it still comes down to a state exercising its constitutional police power under the 10th Amendment, and a Federal court reviewing the case agreeing that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the state action. You have failed to demonstrate why it should apply.

All of this has happened before.. I'm not going to continue going around in circles with you guys.

I've been over it before. If you want my answers reread previous threads on the subject. You've failed to demonstrate why I shouldn't be able to purchase an AR-15.

I am in no way shape or form saying that. You have failed to understand the context of this issue because you are arguing from a place of emotion rather than logic.

First of all, I am not the Maryland legislature. Second of all, you do not live in Maryland (unless I'm mistaken). The state's right to legislate this issue is will support constitutionally. You're still free to buy assault rifles in your state.

Sheriffs and organized, professional police forces are somewhat distinct from one another though. Besides, 1600s America is still just an extension of England so the question of
constitutionality isn't applicable until the establishment of the Boston PD in 1838.

Please stop using that fucking phrase "assault rifle". The Maryland ban applies to (say it with me) a civilian SEMI-AUTOMATIC-WEAPON. That means every time you pull the trigger, it fires a round. The military versions (an actual "assault rifle" if you must apply it to a weapon) fire a THREE-ROUND-BURST if you choose to shoot it on "burst" with the selector switch, meaning if you hold down the trigger it will fire three rounds fully automatic. Pull the trigger again and hold it down and it shoots another three rounds fully automatic. Move the selector switch to "semi" and it goes back to one bullet per trigger pull. Do you not understand the difference between civilian and military weapons?