So MD has a speed limit of 150? I did not know that. Think you would get a ticket and lose your license?
Maryland bans assault rifles
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
So MD has a speed limit of 150? I did not know that. Think you would get a ticket and lose your license?
hvilleherb
Verified User
Exactly. Liberal won't ban cars that have killed people.
The always absurd and equally predictable car/gun piece of horseshit.
As sure as the sun will rise, you idiots will invoke that fecal material.
FYI: Real "Assault rifles have been banned for decades." Simply because a weapon looks like a combat weapon does not make it a combat weapon. Name one state in the us where fully auto military weapons are legal.....without being totally registered with the federal government in order to own a pre 1985 weapon? And just how many of these weapons have been responsible for mass murders? IDIOTS!Ahh, states rights vs. federal gov't rulings...interesting.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106
Last edited:
Ahh, states rights vs. federal gov't rulings...interesting.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106
It's a laughable ruling that hinges entirely on an egregiously disingenuous reading of Heller's, "and the like" . . .
Heller's statement that "if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, . . . " isn't comparing appearances, accessories or furniture, (collapsible stocks, flash hiders, pistol grips etc), it is comparing the full-auto M-16 to other full-auto guns that all fall under Title II of NFA-34. The thing that those guns share, making them both "bannable" and thus "like" each other, is an auto-sear -- the capability of selective or full-auto fire -- NOT collapsible stocks, barrel shrouds and flash hiders. NONE of those things are mentioned in NFA-34; NONE of those things are of any interest in determining a Title II "banned" arm from a legal semi-auto.
Leftist stupidity on parade . . .
Guess what, moron. Maryland can still ban your “assault weapon”.
What's being discussed/rebutted is the narrow definition of "bear arms" argued by DC. He isn't making a statement on the scope of the right, just the incorrectness of DC's argument that "bear" limits the right to just organized militia use.
This is the part of Heller that is totally unnecessary, the textual analysis. Scalia should have just cited long-standing SCOTUS precedent in response to DC, that the right to arms isn't granted by the 2nd Amendment thus it is not in any manner dependent upon any words in the Constitution for its existence -- which he does a couple paragraphs later in (c).
By simple I hope you mean utterly simple-minded. It was good for a laugh. He is amused by the "frothing" in the dissent; I'm willing to be patient for the great frothing of liberals the next time SCOTUS hears a gun case.
Perhaps.
Not sure how though.
United States Constitution
ARTICLE 1. SECTION 9.
3 No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
If it was legal at the time of purchase, the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION says it can't suddenly declare it illegal.
But then, nobody ever said the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
ARTICLE 6.
2 This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land
Oh.
- oops -
ok
Never mind.
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.
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------>
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."
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:
hvilleherb
Verified User
Liberals don't realize that we need good guys with guns to take out the bad guys with guns.
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.
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."
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."
Good for you on not living in Maryland.
The other bullshit you offer is nothing more than the rant of a paranoiac.
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.
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.
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 . . .
.
