Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 180

Thread: Maryland bans assault rifles

  1. #91 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    Can you cite that? I thought I read that as well...
    Number one of two parts:

    First understand that the Supreme Court, in examining the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two separate, distinct things) have filtered the Court's protection of the right to keep and bear arms through the "object" of the 2nd Amendment -- the "why" the pre-existing right was held out from the powers granted, and why the fundamental, retained right was forever secured from federal government infringement in the federal Bill of Rights.

    The primary "object" of the 2nd Amendment was/is to preserve the general militia principle, that this mass of armed citizens (25% of the population) would allow the civil authorities to organize a militia, calling out the farmers, carpenters, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers of the community and have them muster with an appropriate arm supplied by themselves and a couple days provisions to aid the civil authorities.

    That primary object informs the Court on what types of arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment and what possession and use is deemed beyond the reach of government. SCOTUS in 1939 spoke directly on what types of arms are protected for civilain possession and use.

    I've footnoted Miller's famous paragraph with my comments/analysis; if anyone disagrees, a supported explanation sure would be a nice change of pace for this board.


    UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was about the instrument, not the man.


    "In the absence of any evidence[1] tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time[2] 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.[3] Certainly it is not within judicial notice[4] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.[5] Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.[6]


    [1] No evidence was presented because we only heard the U.S. Attorney's argument. The appellees did not appear.

    [2] We are not making a final judgment regarding this type of weapon. Neither will we exclude the possibility that there may be, somewhere, evidence showing that this weapon has militia usefulness.

    [3] Again, we are only deciding upon the status of the weapon, not the citizen.

    [4] We didn't hear any evidence arguing that a short barreled shotgun has militia usefulness and we didn't look for any on our own.

    [5] We are going to add a phrase and condition that was stricken from the proposed 2nd Amendment because . . .

    [6] This paragraph cites and draws its reasoning and directly draws its language from the Tennessee case of Aymette v. State, which held that the kinds of weapons protected for civilian possession and use are those that are "part of the ordinary military equipment," and suitable "for their common defence." This guided us on how to treat the weapon in question and to decide if such a firearm is beyond the reach of NFA-34. Aymette explains well the relationship of the "object" of constitutional provisions that secure the citizen’s pre-existing, fundamental right to arms and the resulting protection criteria for those rights.

    Continued------>
    GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS

  2. #92 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    Can you cite that? I thought I read that as well...
    Part two:

    Aymette at page 158 states:


    "The object, then, for which the right of keeping, and bearing arms is secured is of the public. The [citizens] may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution. The words "bear arms," too, have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress.

    As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority.

    They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them is not,therefore, secured by the constitution."


    Refering to the previously quoted Miller paragraph, the SCOTUS established the 2nd Amendment protection criteria as, . . . If the arm is of a type that constitutes the ordinary military equipment and/or it is of a type that could be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens, and (later in the opinion) is of a type in common use by the citizens at the time, then the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and any authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use must be repelled or invalidated.

    It is abundatly clear that arms "like" the AR-15, semi-auto, detachable magazine rifle, meet ALL the protection criteria -- probably better than any other type of arm in the public domain currently.

    Let's be perfectly clear, 2nd Amendment protection criteria is based primarily on how the arm fits into a battle scheme -- IOW, how effective it is in killing people and how common it is in the hands of the citizenry. If the arm in question meets any of those criteria it cannot be considered "dangerous and unusual" no matter how hyperbolic liberals get.

    .
    Last edited by Abatis; 03-17-2018 at 11:02 PM.
    GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS

  3. #93 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    5,115
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,177 Times in 991 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 313 Times in 276 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leaningright View Post
    I’ll bite ... Because it was politically expedient at that moment in our history. And when it is more politically expedient to ban handguns they’ll be next.
    Liberals don't realize that we need good guys with guns to take out the bad guys with guns.

  4. #94 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Guess what, moron. Maryland can still ban your “assault weapon”.
    Maryland law does not bind me; neither does the 4th Circuit.

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Historically, there is only one conclusion as to the meaning of the term “bear arms” at the time if the writing of the Constitution. When someone had to “bear arms”, they did so in the context of a military situation. They did not “bear arms” to go out and shoot dinner.
    The right is not created or granted or given by the 2ndA thus the right does not in any manner depend on words for its existence.

    Either way, the right is the citizen's to be exercised without any consideration of militia enrolment status. Read Aymette, every man has the right to keep and bear (when circumstances demand) the arms of the type usually employed in civilized warfare, that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizen has these arms in his hands, he is able to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution and repel any encroachments upon his and his neighbors rights by those in authority, because . . . he and his neighbors are capable of acting in concert and prepared in the best possible manner to act together in a body -- without permission or license from the usurpers-- to re-secure their liberties.

    That my dear statist authoritarian friend, is the right to "bear" arms . . . And the state I live in recognizes it:

    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
    GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS

  5. #95 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use at the time, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms that are most useful in military service. - - - Heller
    Aymette continues and speaks to "dangerous and unusual" as being arms that are "dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare". If the arm is of a type used in civilized warfare, it can not be deemed "dangerous and unusual". This of course stands in direct opposition to the 4th Circuit's decision.


    "A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?

    The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed."
    GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS

  6. #96 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    Maryland law does not bind me; neither does the 4th Circuit.



    The right is not created or granted or given by the 2ndA thus the right does not in any manner depend on words for its existence.

    Either way, the right is the citizen's to be exercised without any consideration of militia enrolment status. Read Aymette, every man has the right to keep and bear (when circumstances demand) the arms of the type usually employed in civilized warfare, that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizen has these arms in his hands, he is able to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution and repel any encroachments upon his and his neighbors rights by those in authority, because . . . he and his neighbors are capable of acting in concert and prepared in the best possible manner to act together in a body -- without permission or license from the usurpers-- to re-secure their liberties.

    That my dear statist authoritarian friend, is the right to "bear" arms . . . And the state I live in recognizes it:

    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
    Good for you on not living in Maryland.

    The other bullshit you offer is nothing more than the rant of a paranoiac.

  7. #97 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Brilliant retort, sailor! Oh, how can I hope to stand against such an onslaught of logical brilliance? (note: this is sarcasm, in case you didn't know).
    I figured I would dumb it down enough to bring it down to your intellectual level. No need to thank me. I take pity on those less intellectually capable.

  8. #98 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Peridot View Post
    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.”
    Why do you think your quotes rebut Peridot's statement?

    Given the brash nature of your condemnation, you should be able to lay out a compelling legal argument why he's wrong and how and why your quotes definitively prove it.
    GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS

  9. #99 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    QUESTION:

    Is there a fundamental error in the notion that there should be no weapons ban or restriction? If I want an extensive H-bomb * arsenal, should government have the authority to restrict or deny me it?

    If no, then allowing some guns while denying others would seem to exceed legitimate government authority.

    But as soon as we agree as a People that government has the authority to prevent private ownership of daisy-cutters, canons, and other such matériel
    then it becomes a simple quibble about where we draw the line. For once we accept that government authority we are already on the slippery slope.

    * not A-bomb, H-bomb, that's the kind that makes the loud noise
    This is a question that really doesn't desreve all the attention it gets. It is easily answered by just applying the most fundamental (and important) principles of the Constitution, that of conferred powers and retained rights.

    The Constitution is a charter of strictly defined (thus limited) conferred powers, powers that "We the People" have granted to government so it can perform certain duties "We the People" have assigned to it.

    In this instance, it is the power to declare war and raise and support and provide for an army and navy that have been surrendered by "We the People" and governs the question you ask. This power includes the supreme powers to acquire, possess and deploy the weapons of wide scale and indiscriminate warfare.

    These intermingled principles of conferred powers and retained rights demands that those powers/interests that "We the People" have surrendered, we can no longer claim as a right.

    This principle is directly evident in the Constitution as it pertains to weapons of war owned by private citizens. The most devastating weapon of the day were armed ships owned by Privateers but once the Revolutionary War was over, control over the ownership, maintenance and use of these weapons was granted to Congress in Art I, § 8, cl. 11. The same principle behind that grant of power can be applied today, to justify and sustain modern laws prohibiting citizens from owning modern weapons of open, indiscriminate warfare like RPG's, missiles, fighter jets and yes, even NBC WMD's . . .

    .
    GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS

  10. #100 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    This is a question that really doesn't desreve all the attention it gets. It is easily answered by just applying the most fundamental (and important) principles of the Constitution, that of conferred powers and retained rights.

    The Constitution is a charter of strictly defined (thus limited) conferred powers, powers that "We the People" have granted to government so it can perform certain duties "We the People" have assigned to it.

    In this instance, it is the power to declare war and raise and support and provide for an army and navy that have been surrendered by "We the People" and governs the question you ask. This power includes the supreme powers to acquire, possess and deploy the weapons of wide scale and indiscriminate warfare.

    These intermingled principles of conferred powers and retained rights demands that those powers/interests that "We the People" have surrendered, we can no longer claim as a right.

    This principle is directly evident in the Constitution as it pertains to weapons of war owned by private citizens. The most devastating weapon of the day were armed ships owned by Privateers but once the Revolutionary War was over, control over the ownership, maintenance and use of these weapons was granted to Congress in Art I, § 8, cl. 11. The same principle behind that grant of power can be applied today, to justify and sustain modern laws prohibiting citizens from owning modern weapons of open, indiscriminate warfare like RPG's, missiles, fighter jets and yes, even NBC WMD's . . .

    .
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  11. #101 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    it's funny that the hatred that liberals held for Scalia simply vanishes in the face of the bullshit heller opinion he wrote.....as if scalia was a constitutional god.....but just this one time.
    I wouldn't call Heller bullshit. It is lacking but it was limited by SCOTUS when it granted cert. The Court scrubbed the question presented in Heller's appeal and crafted its own, limiting the argument it wanted to hear and the legal question it was going to decide.

    The Court in Heller acknowledges that it was not undertaking an exhaustive historical analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment. That is part of the quote that anti-gun dumbasses like dormer always leave out -- along with footnote 26 -- trying to mis-represent Scalia as stating all existing gun control is constitutionally valid. He was saying nothing of the sort.
    GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS

  12. #102 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Your questions are yet another desperate attempt to avoid the OP and the following https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...36#post2256236

    No matter how you dance, your personal interpretation, supposition and conjecture is no substitute for the valid, historical facts in ALL their context.
    I've replied to both the OP and your other post liked there . . . And made an attempt to support my personal interpretation with historical and legal facts. Are you going to rebut me or dance away in silence?
    GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS

  13. #103 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    Why do you think your quotes rebut Peridot's statement?

    Given the brash nature of your condemnation, you should be able to lay out a compelling legal argument why he's wrong and how and why your quotes definitively prove it.
    Heller says no such thing and you know it. It’s not my job to educate the willfully ignorant.

  14. #104 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Good for you on not living in Maryland.

    The other bullshit you offer is nothing more than the rant of a paranoiac.
    No ranting, just laying out unimpeachable legal argument.

    It's OK if you have no real rebuttal.

    You don't need to demonstrate your ignorance with such enthusiasm.
    GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS

  15. #105 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    No ranting, just laying out unimpeachable legal argument.

    It's OK if you have no real rebuttal.

    You don't need to demonstrate your ignorance with such enthusiasm.
    As I know what Heller says and that is does NOT say what he claims, I need no rebuttal.

Similar Threads

  1. Banning assault rifles would be constitutional
    By Cancel 2018.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 03-04-2018, 01:40 PM
  2. Why were assault rifles prohibited?
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 12-19-2015, 09:09 PM
  3. Production Of “Assault” Rifles Explodes Under Obama…
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 05-07-2013, 03:21 PM
  4. Thank God or Rush that we get assault rifles
    By Topspin in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 03-24-2009, 08:55 AM
  5. I HOPE YOU ENJOY YOUR ASSAULT RIFLES
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 12-06-2007, 12:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •