Maryland bans assault rifles

[Taichiliberal]

Ahh, states rights vs. federal gov't rulings...interesting.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

I didn't realize Heller had an exclusion for "weapons of war". I thought they said a militia or citizens to be called upon to be militia should be familiar with such weapons.

Also, isn't this case over a year old?

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

I didn't realize Heller had an exclusion for "weapons of war". I thought they said a militia or citizens to be called upon to be militia should be familiar with such weapons.

Also, isn't this case over a year old?

The links I saw for it had it February 2017

 

[Taichiliberal]

I didn't realize Heller had an exclusion for "weapons of war". I thought they said a militia or citizens to be called upon to be militia should be familiar with such weapons.

Also, isn't this case over a year old?

It does
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

And a more simpler take

https://abovethelaw.com/2017/02/4th...ances-a-tarantella-on-scalias-grave-probably/

And yes, the case is over a year old and it still holds....I just put it out here to remind all the NRA flunkies and extreme gun rights folks what's up before they ramble on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The links I saw for it had it February 2017

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...and-bans-assault-rifles&p=2256236#post2256236

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

It does
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

And a more simpler take

https://abovethelaw.com/2017/02/4th...ances-a-tarantella-on-scalias-grave-probably/

And yes, the case is over a year old and it still holds....I just put it out here to remind all the NRA flunkies and extreme gun rights folks what's up before they ramble on.

Thanks for the links I, I'll read them. These cases are not law of the land.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Thanks for the links I, I'll read them. These cases are not law of the land.

I never said they were. But they SHOULD BE!

 

[Peridot]

Thanks for the links I, I'll read them. These cases are not law of the land.

The law of the land is Heller AND Miller the latter of which specifically states weapons military utility are unequivocally protected.

 

[Bigdog]

And yet, Baltimore's murder rate increased 100% after the Freddie Gray, BLM riots.



Banning BLM would have provided better results than a gun ban.

 

[goldkam]

Ahh, states rights vs. federal gov't rulings...interesting.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

A step in the right direction, actions....alternative action needed to be taken

 

[goldkam]

And yet, Baltimore's murder rate increased 100% after the Freddie Gray, BLM riots.



Banning BLM would have provided better results than a gun ban.

Firstly gun banning or stricter legislation is not necessarily going to significantly reduce or diminish non-firearm related crimes. The primary purpose is too limit and reduce firearm related offences.

Rates may be increasing but a clear correlation can be made....of the 343 homicides in 2017 in Baltimore alone 88% were firearm related. 97% of this 88% was with a handgun. Legislation pertaining to handguns is a lot more lenient. Thus trying to correlate banning assault weapons and handgun crime is not entirely accurate. Additionally you cannot simply limit it to Baltimore, Maryland consists of a number of other areas.

 

[Darth Omar]

Firstly gun banning or stricter legislation is not necessarily going to significantly reduce or diminish non-firearm related crimes. The primary purpose is too limit and reduce firearm related offences.

Rates may be increasing but a clear correlation can be made....of the 343 homicides in 2017 in Baltimore alone 88% were firearm related. 97% of this 88% was with a handgun. Legislation pertaining to handguns is a lot more lenient. Thus trying to correlate banning assault weapons and handgun crime is not entirely accurate. Additionally you cannot simply limit it to Baltimore, Maryland consists of a number of other areas.

The 97% handgun rate isn’t surprising and it almost certainly reflects the national rate.

The so called assault weapons are infrequently used in gun crimes. The odds of being shot with one in a crime are so astronomically low they are barely worth considering. The difference is the mass shooting part.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

but assault vehicles are still legal. You want to drive 150 mph and kill entire families, MD says go for it.

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

The law of the land is Heller AND Miller the latter of which specifically states weapons military utility are unequivocally protected.

Can you cite that? I thought I read that as well...

 

[domer76]

The law of the land is Heller AND Miller the latter of which specifically states weapons military utility are unequivocally protected.

Wrong again, moron.

Scalia on Heller:

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

 

[Peridot]

Can you cite that? I thought I read that as well...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Therefore, firearms that would be considered ordinary military equipment OR could contribute to the common defense are protected.

 

[Peridot]

Wrong again, moron.

Scalia on Heller:

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Try reading Miller dipshit .

 

[domer76]

Try reading Miller dipshit .

Try reading Heller before you make additional stupid shit remarks about it.

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

Therefore, firearms that would be considered ordinary military equipment OR could contribute to the common defense are protected.

Yep, thanks, that what it was and I think it is stated more clearly elsewhere, I'll take another read.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

Therefore, firearms that would be considered ordinary military equipment OR could contribute to the common defense are protected.

I just want one of these.