HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » Maryland (Group) » Assault Weapons Not Prote...

Wed Nov 8, 2017, 07:48 PM

Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules.

'Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it's "unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment."'>>>

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapons-not-protected-second-amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

10 replies, 1837 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules. (Original post)
elleng Nov 2017 OP
Gothmog Nov 2017 #1
Sneederbunk Nov 2017 #7
flamin lib Nov 2017 #8
elleng Nov 2017 #10
whathehell Nov 2017 #2
Phoenix61 Nov 2017 #3
RandomAccess Nov 2017 #4
RainCaster Nov 2017 #5
elleng Nov 2017 #6
flamin lib Nov 2017 #9

Response to elleng (Original post)

Wed Nov 8, 2017, 07:50 PM

1. I look forward to reading this opinion

There was language in the Heller decision that is consistent with this ruling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 8, 2017, 10:26 PM

7. Feb 21 2017 decision

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 8, 2017, 10:57 PM

8. Where did you get your Constitutional Law Degree? Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 9, 2017, 12:16 AM

10. Yes.

'"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.'

HOWEVER, "Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn't even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority "has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms." He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

"For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland's law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand," Traxler wrote.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Wed Nov 8, 2017, 07:52 PM

2. YES!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Wed Nov 8, 2017, 07:52 PM

3. Awesome!

Finally, sanity raises its head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Wed Nov 8, 2017, 08:58 PM

4. THIS IS HUGE

 

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Wed Nov 8, 2017, 09:03 PM

5. The NRA can't buy the courts

But they can put judges on the bench when the Orange Grabber remains unimpeachable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainCaster (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 8, 2017, 09:08 PM

6. Yes, a big concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Wed Nov 8, 2017, 11:03 PM

9. This is in line with other SCOTUS actions

like refusing to hear challenges to similar laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread