Thursday, February 23, 2017

You Have No Right to Own a 'Military-Style' Rifle, According to Federal Appeals Court Decision

Via Billy
Major Gun Show Held In Virginia

& you can kiss my ruddy, red rectum.

 
A federal appeals court in Maryland ruled Tuesday that semi-automatic rifles, commonly referred to as “military-style assault weapons,” are not protected under the Second Amendment.

The ruling came after the state’s so-called “assault weapons” ban was challenged on constitutional grounds. However, the court easily upheld the ban with a 10-4 vote.

Maryland’s gun ban also outlaws magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Posted by at

7 comments:

  1. genericviewsFebruary 23, 2017 at 8:57 AM

    Hey! I bought a gun from that guy in the picture. It's a small world!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brock TownsendFebruary 23, 2017 at 9:47 AM

      Really! :) Look well made.

      Delete
    2. genericviewsFebruary 23, 2017 at 11:05 AM

      Sorry. Wrong guy. I meant the guy who works for Trader Jerry's, not "Sandy's".

      My thoughts on the Court's rulings are here:
      https://genericviews.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/gun-ban-is-constitutional/

      Delete
  2. AnonymousFebruary 23, 2017 at 9:37 AM

    "Assault" is either a crime or an offensive military tactic. An "assault weapon" is a weapon used in a crime, one of the most common being fists or a full-auto rifle used in an offensive military assault. Semi-auto rifles are especially well suited for defensive use and are therefore owned by tens of millions of Americans to exercise their basic human right of armed self defense. And it is been conclusively demonstrated down through history that ONLY YOUR ENEMY WANTS YOU DISARMED. --Ron W

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brock TownsendFebruary 23, 2017 at 9:55 AM

      ONLY YOUR ENEMY WANTS YOU DISARMED

      Amen and good luck on that here.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousFebruary 23, 2017 at 11:28 AM

    According to Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, judges are to "be bound" by "the Supreme Law of the Land", the Constitution, and laws pursuant thereof. There is no power in the Constitution delegated to the Federal Government pertaining to what arms the People choose for their right to self defense except for those EMPLOYED in its service. (Article I, Section 8.16) And according to the 10th Amendment, the Federal Government, including judges, may do NOTHING. Furthermore the fundamental human RIGHT to possess, keep and carry the means to armed self defense would certainly be included in the 9th Amendment. --Ron W

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. genericviewsFebruary 23, 2017 at 2:29 PM

      Correct, and irrelevant. The 10th amendment is the one being enforced here. The federal judge is backing the state's authority to regulate firearms. The Constitution does not prohibit that to the States. This was a stupid judge but his verdict was correct. A state may regulate the trade in firearms. So long as effective firearms are still available for private ownership, the 2nd amendment is not infringed.

      Personally, I don't like this either, but that's just another reason why I don't live in MD. People who do live in MD don't seem to mind this so much. That's on them.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)