Sunday, August 17, 2014

Court Upholding Ban on Militia-Suitable Firearms Ignores Key Second Amendment Purpose

Via avordvet

 Gavel with American flag

U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake decided Tuesday against plaintiffs in Kolbe v O’Malley, a challenge to Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, ruling “assault weapons” and their standard-capacity magazines “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.”

The Clinton-appointed judge went through double-jointed judicial contortions, revealing politically-motivated hostilities to be dissected by no shortage of legal scholars and pundits.

14 comments:

  1. I liked Tam's comment. Something like: if you can buy it at Wal Mart it isn't unusual.
    Terry
    Fla.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just look close at Ferguson, Missouri. Police stand around and doing nothing as stores are looted and burned. Tell the store owners defending their property 10 rounds are enough. I’ll keep my ALL my 20, 30 and 40 round clips.

    Badger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just look close at Ferguson, Missouri. Police stand around and doing nothing as stores are looted and burned.

      Insane.

      Delete
  3. Ridiculous decision. All weapons can be used for assault or defense. Labeling it assault demonizes the weapon as if it can choose who wields it. Should be called defensive weapons. Defensive. Because that's how good guys will use it.

    How can something that isn't mentioned by the second amendment fall outside of it? Stupidity is contagious. She must be hanging with Clinton. If we were a bunch of terrorists in Benghazi, we'd be given shoulder fired missile launchers and a license to kill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we were a bunch of terrorists in Benghazi, we'd be given shoulder fired missile launchers and a license to kill.

      Really.

      Delete
  4. If we were in a nation that lived up to what its founders intended with the Bill of Rights, we'd be given shoulder fired missile launchers.
    When the Bill of Rights was written, any citizen could own any weapon in the Federal arsenal (or better if they could afford it) up to and including Heavy Artillery -and that was Just what the 2nd amendment was written to protect. So We would be as well armed as any would-be tyrant or despot.
    Shall not be infringed.
    Seems pretty clear to me...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Precisely, the cannon that line the water front of the town I live in and many other old colonial towns did not come from the military. They were the property of ship owners and business men and local militias. CH

      Delete
    2. Yes but in my case New Bern. CH

      Delete
    3. I see, guess I missed them. My 6th Great Grandfather was among the Swiss and German colonists who founded New Bern in 1710 under the leadership of Baron Christopher De Graffenreid.

      Delete
  5. This is just another 'Federal' ruling that people will ignore, making the law irrelevant. Why are those appointees choosing to negate their own professions? Why are they destroying the very concept of law?

    ReplyDelete