IGX

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment. "Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote, referring to the "military-style rifles" that were also used during mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, San Bernardino, California, and Orlando, Florida [...]
In total, seven states and the District of Columbia have laws that ban semiautomatic rifles, several of which that have faced various court challenges as there is a longstanding legal debate over the scope of Second Amendment rights. Four appeal courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, King wrote.

Killings in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties increased last year, reflecting trends in homicide figures for the District and other large cities across the country.

In 2015, Montgomery experienced one of its deadliest years in two decades with 30 homicides, and Prince George’s ended a three-year streak of declines with 81 killings.

bennyonesix wrote:Also, a "militia" can't have "military" weapons.

As if the Founders hadn't just fought the baddest military in the world with a citizen militia. And intended the Amendment to preserve a civilian militia capable of that for perpetuity.

nafod wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:Also, a "militia" can't have "military" weapons.

As if the Founders hadn't just fought the baddest military in the world with a citizen militia. And intended the Amendment to preserve a civilian militia capable of that for perpetuity.

If you are an Originalist, you'll know that the intent was for the militia make a standing army unnecessary. In the run-up to the Constitution, many of the state's inputs to the convention called for a standing army to be banned, period. No army, just militia. Have to make sure they are armed for war.

That lasted until the War of 1812, when the militia didn't work out so well. Standing Army to the front, please.

Now we have a massive perpetual military (and military-industrial complex), making the idea of a militia fighting off intruders a feel-good thing, nothing more.

A true originalist 2nd amendment-er would demand the military down-size to insignificance, as per original intent.

bennyonesix wrote:

nafod wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:Also, a "militia" can't have "military" weapons.

As if the Founders hadn't just fought the baddest military in the world with a citizen militia. And intended the Amendment to preserve a civilian militia capable of that for perpetuity.

If you are an Originalist, you'll know that the intent was for the militia make a standing army unnecessary. In the run-up to the Constitution, many of the state's inputs to the convention called for a standing army to be banned, period. No army, just militia. Have to make sure they are armed for war.

That lasted until the War of 1812, when the militia didn't work out so well. Standing Army to the front, please.

Now we have a massive perpetual military (and military-industrial complex), making the idea of a militia fighting off intruders a feel-good thing, nothing more.

A true originalist 2nd amendment-er would demand the military down-size to insignificance, as per original intent.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:

New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.

nafod wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:Also, a "militia" can't have "military" weapons.

As if the Founders hadn't just fought the baddest military in the world with a citizen militia. And intended the Amendment to preserve a civilian militia capable of that for perpetuity.

If you are an Originalist, you'll know that the intent was for the militia make a standing army unnecessary. In the run-up to the Constitution, many of the state's inputs to the convention called for a standing army to be banned, period. No army, just militia. Have to make sure they are armed for war.

That lasted until the War of 1812, when the militia didn't work out so well. Standing Army to the front, please.

Now we have a massive perpetual military (and military-industrial complex), making the idea of a militia fighting off intruders a feel-good thing, nothing more.

A true originalist 2nd amendment-er would demand the military down-size to insignificance, as per original intent.

nafod wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

nafod wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:Also, a "militia" can't have "military" weapons.

As if the Founders hadn't just fought the baddest military in the world with a citizen militia. And intended the Amendment to preserve a civilian militia capable of that for perpetuity.

If you are an Originalist, you'll know that the intent was for the militia make a standing army unnecessary. In the run-up to the Constitution, many of the state's inputs to the convention called for a standing army to be banned, period. No army, just militia. Have to make sure they are armed for war.

That lasted until the War of 1812, when the militia didn't work out so well. Standing Army to the front, please.

Now we have a massive perpetual military (and military-industrial complex), making the idea of a militia fighting off intruders a feel-good thing, nothing more.

A true originalist 2nd amendment-er would demand the military down-size to insignificance, as per original intent.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

Thanks for making my point. From the link, highlight mine...

Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:

New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.

Pretty clear what the original intent was. Maybe we are agreeing here?

bennyonesix wrote:Your argument that the 2nd is vitiated into ineffectiveness by the current size of the military is wrong and dumb. It does not follow in any way, shape or form except political convenience and bad rhetoric. There is no lawgic trap that we must either disband the standing army or allow shitlibs to grab ARs. There was ALWAYS provision for standing armies. ALWAYS. AT EVERY POINT.

Even your great case Miller doesn't argue that and it was fucking decided right after the war. Sawed offs were not covered because they aren't MILITARY WEAPONS. Thus, MILITARY WEAPONS are protected. Because it is a fucking MILITIA that needs to fight MILITARIES.

bennyonesix wrote:Just lulz at shitlibs with their mass of ABSOLUTELY EXISTENT RIGHTS which are nowhere in any text dead certain the one written down doesn't exist.

Aborters, fags, trannys, miscegenators, porn lovers, buyers of condoms, school integrators etc etc etc has the entire weight of the gov on their side.

Gun owners get fucked.

Makes one think.

nafod wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:Your argument that the 2nd is vitiated into ineffectiveness by the current size of the military is wrong and dumb. It does not follow in any way, shape or form except political convenience and bad rhetoric. There is no lawgic trap that we must either disband the standing army or allow shitlibs to grab ARs. There was ALWAYS provision for standing armies. ALWAYS. AT EVERY POINT.

Even your great case Miller doesn't argue that and it was fucking decided right after the war. Sawed offs were not covered because they aren't MILITARY WEAPONS. Thus, MILITARY WEAPONS are protected. Because it is a fucking MILITIA that needs to fight MILITARIES.

I'm not arguing the 2nd is vitiated into ineffectiveness. The SC has ruled an individual right to carry.

I am taking a shot at you proudly cloaking yourself in your Originalist garb, and how quickly you'll toss that onto the heap and ignore reams of original thinking as soon as it conflicts with your emotional connection to guns.

The Constitution and the run up documents are FULL OF CAUTIONS ABOUT STANDING ARMIES. Do you know why the military has to go through the gawdawful POM cycle funding drill every two years? Because the founders wanted to make sure the standing Army could be cut off at the knees at any moment funding-wise so they stuck it into the Constitution. Except for the Navy, we operated on a 5 year cycle, because of course the Navy wasn't going to suppress citizenry.

Bullshit that the militias are needed to fight the militaries. That is full-on retarded. Actually read the documents you cited. They are full of "militia instead of standing Army" and you won't find "militia in order to fight standing Army".

bennyonesix wrote:I AM NOT AN ORIGINALIST.

STANDING ARMIES WERE ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE A POSSIBILITY: AN ADDITION TO THE MILITIAS.

bennyonesix wrote:I AM NOT AN ORIGINALIST.

I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID SO.

bennyonesix wrote:Gun owners get fucked.

JimZipCode wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:I AM NOT AN ORIGINALIST.

I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID SO.

It's true, he has repeatedly said so. Johno's the originalist.

But Benny, if you're not an originalist, why do you keep deploying arguments about what militia's were originally intended for, the original thinking about standing armies, etc? It's confusing.

JimZipCode wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:Gun owners get fucked.

Gun owners have more rights post-Heller than they've ever had. The current administration is probably the most gun-friendly one in the last 50 years. In what sense do gun owners get fucked?

nafod wrote: A true originalist 2nd amendment-er would demand the military down-size to insignificance, as per original intent.

johno wrote:As the IGx resident originalist, I note that the Second Amendment's explicit purpose was a military* one. Narrowly construing that amendment, one might restrict gun owners' rights to possess only military style weapons. Construing it a little more broadly, the government might allow/encourage citizens to own firearms of their choosing, to develop proficient marksmanship for potential military service. Construing it even more broadly, the government might provide such weapons and training.


*"A well-regulated militia being necessary...."

Kenny X wrote:I laugh, because no matter what The People's Republic Of Maryland does, they can't seem to stop the homicides.

All this hand-wringing over occasional "mass shootings", while regular old shootings continue.

I don't think tougher gun laws, and prohibition of certain guns in particular, is going to solve anything.

Killings in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties increased last year, reflecting trends in homicide figures for the District and other large cities across the country.

In 2015, Montgomery experienced one of its deadliest years in two decades with 30 homicides, and Prince George’s ended a three-year streak of declines with 81 killings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu ... story.html

DrDonkeyLove wrote: Personally, I'd like to see gun rights sanctuary counties in places like upstate NY and western MD.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:
In 2015, Montgomery experienced one of its deadliest years in two decades with 30 homicides, and Prince George’s ended a three-year streak of declines with 81 killings.

It's why we can't give an inch when it comes to gun rights