Posted on 08/12/2014 3:39:23 PM PDT by bamahead
In what looks to be a terrible ruling for Maryland gun owners a federal judge has essentially ruled that guns that were regulated by the state of Maryland last year, including AR-15 and AK style rifles (as well as other magazine fed, semi-auto rifles with certain features), “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms,” according to a 47 page opinion by U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake.
The case in question is Kolbe et al v. O’Malley et al which named numerous plaintiffs including the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), among others which challenged the constitutionality of Maryland’s strict new gun laws.
Here are some of Blake’s other comments [emphasis mine],
Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.
First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.
The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.
As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.
Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.
Blake further points out that so called “assault weapons” are “disproportionately represented in mass shootings”. Blake’s comments are misguided at best and it would seem difficult to weigh her opinion against the Supreme Court’s Heller decision.
Blake is a Bill Clinton appointed judge.
There was a time in the USA when all military equipment, no longer needed, was sold by auction to the public AS IT WAS CONSIDERED PUBLIC PROPERTY!
Now, in the last 100 years, public property, used by the government, has been destroyed or dumped into the ocean to keep from returning it to it’s rightful owners, THE PUBLIC who paid for it in TAXES!
And the First Amendment covers only hand-set, hand-operated printers. No internet or computers with word-processing capability back then, so, no modern printers not TV or radio when exercising your First Amendment. . .
“The Libety Tree is in a great need of watering.”
And the federal judiciary is in a great need of pruning!
Problem is, they keep chipping away at our rights, lulling us into apathy. We do nothing about it, as long as the bread and circuses continue.
Your comments make too much sense for the Feds to take seriously. You are right but the fed’s goal is to disarm the people, any excuse to do so will be correct in their minds.
The Feds say, “Common sense be damned.”
I just knew that was coming...
After reading your comments for years, I rank you up the crazy scale with Ted Nugent. I on the other hand, only rate Duck Dynasty ranking.
M1A Springfield National Match and drums for the AK. Don’t forget ammo.
“Time to feed the hogs.”
A Muzzie judge’s nightmare, would apply to any Muzzie come to think of it. Liked the movie.
This sort of thing is the reason why continued control of the House and gaining control of the Senate are so important.
This ruling, if it stands (and I think it will), only applies to
laws enacted at the state level. Because with GOP control of the House (and, presumably the Senate) nothing like this will be enacted at the Federal level.
It means that there are still states for gun owners to go to, where their 2nd Amendment rights won’t be interfered with. TX, KY, etc.
Ted Nugent was just one of the locals where I grew up in Michigan.
In fact he sold his house on Luttenton Rd between Hanover and Concord to his taxidermist. As far as I know he’s still there. (Mark Ditzel)
“and the homosexual culture is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.”
Therfore, we must ban same sex marriage....oh wait!
True. I don’t know what to think when I hear Freepers who want to give this election to the rats. I understand their frustration but unsure if that’s the way to do it.
“...fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms...”
Funny, I couldn’t locate the “dangerous and unusual” clause in the Constitution.
That was REALLY good!
” She is not stupid. She is malicious. She thinks that “unusual and dangerous” is vague enough to hang her ruling on. The question is, where do you draw the line? If 3% is not “common” enough, how about 10%? 49%? There is not a single model common enough to consist of more than 3% of the U.S. stock.”
You nailed it cold!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.