PeterS

by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SHARE
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it's "unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment."

Image: AR-15 rifles build by DSA Inc.
AR-15 rifles. Scott Olson / Getty Images
"It's a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it's en-banc and for the strength of its decision," Frosh said, noting that all of the court's judges participated.

Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn't even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority "has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms." He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

"For a law-abiding citizen who, for wh**ever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland's law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand," Traxler wrote.

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said, "It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected 'arm' under the Second Amendment." She added that the majority opinion "clearly ignores the Supreme Court's guidance from District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are 'in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.'"

The NRA estimates there are 5 million to 10 million AR-15s — one of the weapons banned under Maryland's law — in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes. Asked about an appeal, Baker said the NRA is exploring all options.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapons-not-protected-second-amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

Damn, I would have thought they would have found it constitutional since the only thing the constitution upholds is the arming of a m*****a. Surprise, surprise...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Liberalism is a mental disease. An AR15 IS NOT a weapon of war.

The 2nd Amendment is very clear. (Madison: Federalist #46) All Americans capable of bearing arms ARE the m*****a, and their right to bear arms, "shall not be infringed."

.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

Exactly, they said because the looked like the M-16 that made them assault rifles. You can make a pellet rifle that looks like a M-16. Would that also get banned as an assault rifle? The so called judges need to be removed as the are no longer in good behavior mode. Then, there is quite an excess of this corrupt behavior going on with the judiciary.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Bastards on the bench: Fourth Circuit limits Second Amendment right to possess common firearms

By: Daniel Horowitz | February 22, 2017

What happens when courts create faux rights, such as the “right” for foreign nationals to immigrate, the “right” for states to demand more immigrants from the federal government, the “right” for i*****l a***ns to obtain driver’s licenses, or the “right” to 15 days of early v****g? -

Inevitably, the courts overlook the most foundational of rights that are written in plain English — the ones that serve as the foundation of our republic. Last week, it was a state court in Washington violating the property and conscience rights of those who don’t service homosexual ceremonies. Today, it is the courts infringing upon the one right that pre-dated the Bill of Rights and is written in the most unambiguous and absolute terms: “shall not be infringed.”

As is always the case, after conservatives secured a 2-1 victory at the Fourth Circuit last year against Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban, the full en banc panel upheld the law. In a 10-4 ruling – one which was full of vengeful rhetoric over Sandy Hook and ignorance of the distinction between a machine gun and a ‘scary looking’ semi-auto — the court ruled that Maryland could ban 45 commonly held weapons as well as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. “We have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage,” wrote a brazen Judge Robert B. King. Every Democrat appointee except for Judge William Traxler (who wrote the dissent) and one GOP appointee joined the majority opinion.

Following the Sandy Hook shooting, states like Maryland, New York and Connecticut banned a multitude of semi-automatic rifles containing cosmetic features that make them look scary. Some states also required forced registration of those firearms already owned by private citizens. Additionally, they banned magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Yet, despite almost a decade since the Heller decision, the lower courts have been allowed to chip away at this foundational right. Thus far, the Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have all ruled that almost any common gun or magazine in use can be banned by a state if the pistol grips and picatinny rails on the rifles look scary. Additionally, the Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Courts have each ruled there is no right to self-defense outside the home — in contravention of the plain language of the Heller decision.

As I’ve written before, the notion that any common weapon can be banned violates the inalienable right to self-defense, which predated the Second Amendment. It is a natural right. Yet, given that we live in a world where rights come from the Supreme Court, we should at least ensure that lower courts properly read the text of the Heller decision. Here is what Scalia wrote in the majority opinion:

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

Thus, contrary to the Fourth Circuit’s opinion, this case has already been addressed by Heller. There is no government “interest balancing” for perceived benefits of public safety that can justify the infringement upon the right to self-defense for any commonly held weapon used for lawful purposes.

Judge William Traxler, in a rare display of intellectual honesty for a Democrat appointee, laid out the consequences of this case in plain English:

Today the majority holds that the Government can take semi automatic rifles away from law-abiding American citizens. In South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland, the Government can now tell you that you cannot hunt with these rifles. The Government can tell you that you cannot shoot at targets with them. And, most importantly, the Government can tell you that you cannot use them to defend yourself and your family in your home. In concluding that the Second Amendment does not even apply, the majority has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

Indeed, in the case of lower courts upholding sweeping gun bans, the silence of more than three justices willing to grant cert to petitioners (it takes four) is deafening. As Justice Thomas has noted in his dissent on the denial of cert on the two previous assault weapons bans, the other justices (presumably Roberts and Kennedy included) are clearly allowing the Second Amendment to become a second-class right. And Roberts was allowing this to happen even when Scalia was on the court. Thus, don’t expect this to change after Gorsuch takes his seat on the high court.

What this decision demonstrates, once again, is that not only does stare decisis (precedent) only hold true for liberal Supreme Court rulings, but it fails to bind even the lower courts to opinions it doesn’t like. This is the same rationale the Ninth Circuit used to trash 200 years of settled case law when they created a right to immigrate.

Protecting gun rights from heavy-handed laws in blue states is practically the only benefit left for conservatives to keep the practice of judicial review. Yet, the past five years of gun cases has demonstrated that the courts will never serve as a legitimate venue for us to protect real rights. As such, why empower them to create phony rights for protected classes and dangerous rights for foreign nationals?

Loki Loc: Georgia

Since you have no idea what a m*****a is, by the definition of the Founders, and since you have never heard of DC v Heller, and have no idea where to look it up in the US Code, what makes you qualified to offer an opinion?

One more thing. The Fourth Circuit in 2008 was one of the most conservative in the country. It is now stacked with Obama appointees until the Democrats have a 10-5 majority. Guess which ones upheld the ban? After Gorsuch is confirmed and the case goes to the SCOTUS, we may see a new ruling.

PeterS

Liberalism? If you had bothered to read my comment--ironic question for an English major don't you think--military style weapons would be the only weapons protected under the second amendment. That's because the founding fathers expected the m*****a to be the principle army of our country. So it wouldn't do to have our m*****a armed with flintlocks when the bad guys were armed with AK-47's would it. So based on liberalism the 4th circuit ruling was CLEARLY in error.

And I do love how you conservatives blow a gasket whenever you think someone is going to come for your guns. You don't need to read federalist 46 Blade you simple need to read the Second Amendment: A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This was the crux of Madison's argument in Federalist 46: Madison argues that if the federal government were to encroach on the rights of the states, the latter would have a significant advantage in resisting such action. States could ultimately band together in resisting the federal government. Madison dismisses as highly unlikely the chances of the federal government being able to raise an army powerful enough to overcome all the state m*****as. Since the federal government didn't maintain a permanent freestanding army the states could always maintain a force superior to anything the federal government would have. Because of the military power was to be held by the states it would therefore be foolish for the federal government to ever unduly try to force itself on the states. (the italics are mine)

So Blade, based on the constitution military style weapons should be the only weapons that you have. Now the one question not answered under the constitution was who was to pay for them. In the old style states m*****a each soldier provided his own weapons and was required even to maintain a specific number of bullets, patch, and power. But given the expense of today's weapons, and the fact that weapons used to be duel purpose for hunting, the fact that we are required to have them it would seem unfair that we would have to pay for them too.

So, based on the constitution, not only are we suppose to have military weapons but they should be provided by the government. Now myself, I would like to have a M-16 and a 50 cal Snipers rifle. That's because you never know when you might have a f*****t take over and try to implement through government that which was never intended by the constitution--such as a large freestanding army for one. And of course if that didn't work an artillery piece with a nuclear shell would certainly be effective wouldn't it. I might as well put in my order for one of those while I'm at it. This "Right to bare arms thing" was certainly a well thought out amendment. The founders certainly knew what they were doing with this one didn't they...

PeterS

Why are you getting all upset with me Loki? I simple posted the article for discussion. As you know from our past debates I think that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide for us a well regulated m*****a. We couldn't have that if we weren't well armed to could we? Read my reply to Blade Runner and quit jumping to conclusions every time I post something.

Based on the constitution it's not guns that need to be banned but our freestanding army. The founders saw power through the federal government as the enemy and as exemplified by King George it was the freestanding army where power was exercised to suppress the people so by eliminating a freestanding army, and by maintaining a well regulated m*****a, we carrying out the intent of our founding fathers aren't we.

Pretty smart of them don't you think!!!

Loki Loc: Georgia

How about you enlighten us as to the definition of "well-regulated" as it applied in 18th century America? One of the biggest problems with Liberal Appellate Courts such as the Fourth and Ninth, (other than the number of times they are overturned by the SCOTUS) is their willingness to play fast and loose with the Constitution when it suits the purpose of the Judicial Activism they are supposed to avoid. When the Amendment was written, states had far more autonomy than they do now. The Court's position that a state can (pardon the expression) "trump" a Federal ruling is applied haphazardly as it suits their political agenda. They adamantly oppose a state's position that a firearm manufactured and sold within the boundaries of a state is exempt from Federal Law, but when a state makes an unconstitutional ruling they agree with, then states' rights assume far more importance than they would accord it if it disagreed with their personal opinions which are supposed to be left in chambers. This haphazard application of case law and personal opinion is why both the Fourth and the Ninth are overturned so much. This is why we need term limits. The Federal Judiciary is a lifetime appointment. You seem happy with the current composition of the Fourth Circuit. I'll bet you didn't like it worth a damn before it was stacked with Liberals. These judges are confirmed by whichever party has the majority in the Senate at a given time, except Senators change more frequently than judges. Gorsuch will be confirmed as the ninth justice, and the SCOTUS will be conservative for a long time to come. The Ninth and Fourth will see more and more of their politically motivated decisions trashed. A federal judge will not even be nominated unless he or she is in political lockstep with the party in power, and hasn't much chance of being confirmed. Liberals controlled the Senate and stacked the Fourth with Liberal activist judges. Now Conservatives will stack the SCOTUS with constitutional literalists. Term limits for judges, anyone?

okie don

I read that's why the Japanese didn't try to attack our mainland, after bombing Pearl Harbor, as they knew the citizens were well armed

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

They are "assault weapons" because they are scary to the pansies and snowflakes. If they had their way the list would include squirt guns because you could put acid in them and shoot someone in the eye.Areas in Germany have laws that say any large dog capable of attacking someone is too dangerous to allow people to have, and it is exactly the same mindset.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Save your constitutional illiteracy and condescending lectures for someone who gives a s**t.

PeterS

The term well regulated meant that they were to drill regularly; were properly armed and supplied with a certain number of bullets, patch, and power; and each unit reported to a higher up or to the state directly in order to be called up if ever needed. And I don't see that term limits are necessary so long as justices follow the constitution.

'On September 24, 1783, four days after the signing of the Treaty of Paris formally ended the war, Congress directed General George Washington to discharge "such parts of the Federal Army now in Service as he shall deem proper and expedient." For the time being, Washington retained the force facing the British at New York and discharged the rest of the continentals. After the British quit New York, he kept only one infantry regiment and a battalion of artillery, 600 men in all, to guard the military supplies at West Point and other posts.'

Now my point to the above quote is that the founders intended fully to limit our freestanding army to as small as possible. That was the reason behind the second amendment--that military power was to rest with the civilian population which is why the m*****a were to be properly trained and maintained in a disciplined state ready to be called up at any time they were needed.

Now my only question is--when are we going to start following the constitution because we haven't done so for centuries...

PeterS

That what I love about you conservatives--when it comes to the constitution--unless it's something you like, you really don't give a s**t...

Duly noted as they say...

PeterS

Blade, since you love cut and paste's here is a good one just for you. Please read it and tell me if you agree or disagree with it. I would be most interested to know...really I would...

by Daniel J. Schultz

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The reference to a "well regulated" m*****a, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the m*****a, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "m*****a," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary m*****a be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to ens***e them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated m*****a necessary to the security of a free state was a m*****a that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A M*****a well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a m*****a so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "M*****a" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "m*****a" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the M*****a? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "m*****a, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the m*****a, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain m*****as rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the m*****a(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a m*****a and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the m*****a, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated m*****a but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated m*****as, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the m*****as, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the M*****a. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "m*****a" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized m*****a. The unorganized m*****a members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local m*****a groups (or regulate themselves as individual m*****a members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated M*****a."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the m*****a for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the m*****a only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the m*****a, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the m*****a called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the m*****a set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the m*****a exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the m*****a called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the m*****a was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the m*****a(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's m*****as ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but 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 use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" m*****as, that is, armed citizens, ready to form m*****as that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."

okie don

BRAVO Pete,
Now your understanding what the mention of a States M*****a is about!

There's a quote somewhere about when the ' Gubment' get out of control and begins
taking our ' freedoms away' it's up to ' we the people' and the State M*****as to insure
this doesn't happen and they overstep their boundaries enslaving the people in said States.

I truly seems this was the basic thought being the " well regulated M*****a" in the 2nd Amendment.

This is one facet of the AmericaAgain! movement that's sweeping our country...
www.americaagain.net
Check it out!!!