His later designs, like the one above, have oddly found little acceptance in Hollywood action films. Pity!
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.
The Second Amendment should have been the first. It is the only thing that has kept tyrants at bay, hence their extreme interest in destroying it. The Second Amendment, though, is only useful if one decides to exercise it, just like all other rights.
I wonder how much longer. It was time to water the Liberty Tree back around 1913; things have only gotten worse since. How much longer before people have well and truly had enough?
Do you realize that the average citizen of the USA was better armed than the average soldier up until 1956?
Nor could I. Also couldn't find where any inanimate object has Constitutional protection. I thought it was our rights that were protected...
Since ought-six corrected the overall error in your statement, I'll just observe that the above comment is a bit fuzzy as well. The militia as conceived in the era cited did the job with deer rifles loading only a single projectile which consisted of separate components carefully loaded one at a time to form the final product to be fired. Mess up any one of those components and you got a potentially fatal "click" instead of a casualty producing (hopefully) BANG!
Moreover on the three shell capacity you mentioned, each shot should be producing a kill with each squeeze of the trigger and that's three dead enemies in a matter of moments. I'm pretty certain the George Washington would have appreciated those odds.
It matters not what you start with. Practicing the doctrine of TRADE UP produces much more satisfactory results in the long term. In other words:
If you have a knife, you can GET a handgun.
If you have a handgun, you can GET a rifle.
If you have a rifle, you can GET belt fed weapons.
If you have belt fed weapons, you can GET artillery, tanks, antiaircraft missiles or whatever you need to advance the agenda of freedom.
I just have a minor disagreement with the “give me liberty or give me death” approach. That would mean that I lose. ‘Since I learned the difference half a century ago my attitude is “give me liberty, leave my ass alone, and expect death if you want to screw with me, my family, my stuff, or anything about my life.” I’m a two-eyes-for-one guy and stand ready to exercise the Code of the West. Semper Fi
That particular firearm is more unusual than most any other side-by-side. If you saw that movie, you might have noticed that when Doc Holliday first let loose with the two shot Street Howitzer he fired THREE shots in rapid succession.
LOL. . .yup . . but hey, hand-cranked ditto machines are unusual these days. . .
;-)
His later designs, like the one above, have oddly found little acceptance in Hollywood action films. Pity!
It makes me think things I don’t like thinking. Such as “I hope her home gets invaded by thugs with pistols and she only has a six shooter to defend herself.”
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
SMH ping
I saw her photo and thought...
I am glad I am not a liberal. All their women are ugly lesbians.
I cannot remember a good looking liberal woman, any suggestions?
Since the AR-15 is Dangerous and Unusual, I would be happy to exchange my CAR-15 for an MA Deuce, with a couple of extra barrels.
Let me know when I can make the switch!
Thanks for the ping!
if the founders were ok with private citizens owning CANNONS ... then they’d have no problem with a modern rifle
Millions, you say? Doesn't sound "unusual" to me.
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.