Appeal court upholds Marylands assault weopons ban

[hal2kilo]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fe...yland-assault-rifle-ban/ar-AAnbC64?li=BBnbfcL

Amazed that this has not been posted yet. Maybe, they think (second amendment rights advocvates) this will automatically be turned over at the SOCTUS, so no need to comment. Not really my bag.

 

[PokerGuy]

All this does is highlight why we need a Trump overhaul of the judicial branch. He's got a lot of appointments to make to make sure this idiocy doesn't fly. Starting of course at the top where Gorsuch will likely be on the correct side.

 

[interchange]

Also not my bag, but I heard arguments suggesting that these weapons are not actually the most effective killing machines out there, and thus their dangerousness doesn't warrant a ban.

My hypothesis is that these guns are selected by mass shooters for their image and perceived efficacy which is more important to enacting their homicidal/suicidal fantasies than actual efficacy. But it would be hard to provide any concrete evidence to test this, and it is even harder to go from that hypothesis to evidence that banning them would reduce mass shooting events.

As far as constitutionality -- if the legislature has power to limit possession of any arms to the public (say, an RPG or tank), how do you define the limits of that power?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Ultimately a feel-good move. Sandy Hook could have been committed entirely with a pistol, and handguns are by far the most used in gun violence.

 

[HTFOff]

Maryland never allowed "assault weapons" even before sandy hook.

 

[ThePresence]

WTF is an assault weapon? Scary-looking weapon is a more accurate term.

 

[hal2kilo]

WTF is an assault weapon? Scary-looking weapon is a more accurate term.

I should have said assault rifles, and I typoed weapon. I figure assault is usually enough to rile people up. If they think you don't know anything about firearms by using an incorrect term then the discussion is over. Like I said I normally don't participate in these "discussions" I was just surprised that there's been such a tepid response. I guess now that Trumps in, "no more worries".

 

[ThePresence]

I should have said assault rifles, and I typoed weapon. I figure assault is usually enough to rile people up. If they think you don't know anything about firearms by using an incorrect term then the discussion is over. Like I said I normally don't participate in these "discussions" I was just surprised that there's been such a tepid response. I guess now that Trumps in, "no more worries".

Ok. WTF is an assault rifle?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I should have said assault rifles, and I typoed weapon. I figure assault is usually enough to rile people up. If they think you don't know anything about firearms by using an incorrect term then the discussion is over. Like I said I normally don't participate in these "discussions" I was just surprised that there's been such a tepid response. I guess now that Trumps in, "no more worries".

Not worth getting riled up every time some deep blue state or city passes an anti-gun law that mostly affects hobbyists. Baltimore currently holds the silver medal in homicide in the US, behind only St. Louis, let's see how much they manage to fix with this law.

 

[Fardringle]

Ok. WTF is an assault rifle?

A real 'assault' rifle is one that is capable of variable fire rates (it can be switched between single shot, multiple shot, and continuous fire).
The 'gubmint' definition seems to be anything that looks like it might be scary, even if it's just a dressed up .22 target rifle.

 

[hal2kilo]

Ok. WTF is an assault rifle?

Example A.

 

[hal2kilo]

A real 'assault' rifle is one that is capable of variable fire rates (it can be switched between single shot, multiple shot, and continuous fire).
The 'gubmint' definition seems to be anything that looks like it might be scary, even if it's just a dressed up .22 target rifle.

Example B.

 

[Blackjack200]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fe...yland-assault-rifle-ban/ar-AAnbC64?li=BBnbfcL

Amazed that this has not been posted yet. Maybe, they think (second amendment rights advocvates) this will automatically be turned over at the SOCTUS, so no need to comment. Not really my bag.

SCOTUS only has 8 justices, and a tie seems likely leaving the ban in place (lower court decision stands)

 

[Meghan54]

SCOTUS only has 8 justices, and a tie seems likely leaving the ban in place (lower court decision stands)

Or, the SC might just let the lower court decision stand by refusing to hear the case. It's not an unheard of outcome.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yup, why it's important to keep Gorsuch out.

 

[Jeeebus]

As a lawyer, the decision really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. A two page intro that pulls at the heart strings by talking about mass shootings is not doing what the judiciary should do - evaluate the law without involving the politics.

The fact that some people use guns to do bad things doesn't change or impact whether the Second Amendment applies. If the question was whether women should have a right to vote, would anyone not be put off by stories about women getting in more traffic accidents than men or stories about how women are more attentive?

Whether you agree with the decision or not, the introduction of politics has o place in the law. We have other branches of government for that.

 

[dphantom]

As a lawyer, the decision really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. A two page intro that pulls at the heart strings by talking about mass shootings is not doing what the judiciary should do - evaluate the law without involving the politics.

The fact that some people use guns to do bad things doesn't change or impact whether the Second Amendment applies. If the question was whether women should have a right to vote, would anyone not be put off by stories about women getting in more traffic accidents than men or stories about how women are more attentive?

Whether you agree with the decision or not, the introduction of politics has o place in the law. We have other branches of government for that.

+10 on this. Well said. The law is the law. Emotions, wishes, feelings play no part in a judicial decision.

 

[ThePresence]

Yup, why it's important to keep Gorsuch out.

And I would agree to the importance, but for getting him in.

 

[ThePresence]

+10 on this. Well said. The law is the law. Emotions, wishes, feelings play no part in a judicial decision.

Of course. Unfortunately we live in the real world.

A real 'assault' rifle is one that is capable of variable fire rates (it can be switched between single shot, multiple shot, and continuous fire).
The 'gubmint' definition seems to be anything that looks like it might be scary, even if it's just a dressed up .22 target rifle.

Yup. Fact is, there is no such thing as an assault rifle, it's an invented liberal term that means scary looking weapon. Same for "military-style". All BS invented terms. Machine guns have been illegal for decades. We're talking about semi-automatic rifles, no different than any handgun. If someone wants to ban scary looking weapons, they should also be for banning pistols. But that discussion is one they know they will lose time and again, so they turn to the BS cop-out of "military-style assault rifle". I can have an extended mag in my .45 and be infinitely more dangerous than a dude with an AR.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Yeah, I do not agree with the decision. The think of the children argument is a valid one, but it should be used very seldom. The weapons of war? I'm pretty sure army uses handguns, shotguns, and bolt action rifles. Are we going to ban those too because they're used on a battlefield? I'd hope that people who identify themselves as liberals would be a bit more uneasy about restricting 2nd amendment now that the new administration is doing their darnest to create an authoritarian state.

 

[fskimospy]

As a lawyer, the decision really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. A two page intro that pulls at the heart strings by talking about mass shootings is not doing what the judiciary should do - evaluate the law without involving the politics.

The fact that some people use guns to do bad things doesn't change or impact whether the Second Amendment applies. If the question was whether women should have a right to vote, would anyone not be put off by stories about women getting in more traffic accidents than men or stories about how women are more attentive?

Whether you agree with the decision or not, the introduction of politics has o place in the law. We have other branches of government for that.

Whoa, wait a minute, you're a lawyer and you're saying that the fact people use guns to do bad things doesn't impact the second amendment? The fact that people use these guns to do bad things directly relates to whether or not the government can meet the compelling interest standard that's required to restrict possession of these weapons. You may not think it meets that standard, but it absolutely changes and impacts how the second amendment applies.

Your comparisons to women having their voting rights restricted due to getting into traffic accidents also doesn't make a lot of sense as the two things aren't connected, unlike in this case.

 

[1prophet]

Whoa, wait a minute, you're a lawyer and you're saying that the fact people use guns to do bad things doesn't impact the second amendment? The fact that people use these guns to do bad things directly relates to whether or not the government can meet the compelling interest standard that's required to restrict possession of these weapons. You may not think it meets that standard, but it absolutely changes and impacts how the second amendment applies.

Your comparisons to women having their voting rights restricted due to getting into traffic accidents also doesn't make a lot of sense as the two things aren't connected, unlike in this case.

Might as well start using that logic against the 1st amendment as well as the rest of the constitution when one wants to restrict or ban certain people and religions because a few are using religion to do and justify bad things, since a lot of terrorism is directly related to religious beliefs unlike women and traffic tickets.

 

[Blackjack200]

Might as well start using that logic against the 1st amendment as well as the rest of the constitution when one wants to restrict or ban certain people and religions because a few are using religion to do and justify bad things, since a lot of terrorism is directly related to religious beliefs unlike women and traffic tickets.

Those types of restrictions already apply to the first amendment.

 

[interchange]

Those types of restrictions already apply to the first amendment.

Exactly. Constitutional rights can be restricted under this standard: http://www.yourdictionary.com/compelling-interest-test

 

[PokerGuy]

Yup, why it's important to keep Gorsuch out.

lol, good luck with that, he's getting in. That's a big part of why Trump was elected, to make sure illary wouldn't get to appoint multiple scotus justices. One way or another, trump and the republicans will make sure he gets in.