Jump to content

Welcome to SECTalk.com

Welcome to SECTalk.com -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!

You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and SECTalk.com is absolutely free, so please join today!

If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.


federal judge rules AR-15 style rifles are outside the 2nd amendment protections.

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1
smokeyone

smokeyone

    Descendant of a Lord of the Manner in Berkshire.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    9,974
  • Age:
    38
  • Joined:
    Jul 2010
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    3,639
In a case revolving around Maryland ban on magazine feed semi automatic style "assault" rifles with certain shared characteristics of military firearms. She decided that they pose a risk to the general public and have no or limited defensive value. I wasn't a where that defensive value was a determining factor in a 2nd amendment argument.

Interesting insight if someone want to link her ruling.

Posted Image


#2
TheRealBrave

TheRealBrave

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    25,342
  • Age:
    23
  • Joined:
    Nov 2008
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    6,828
lol. I find the idea of someone running around with a semi-auto shotgun with some kind of retarded drum magazine a lot more terrifying than a semi-auto AR-15
Posted Image

It's Chubb time... no homo

#3
GoldenRebel

GoldenRebel

    A Proud Swayze Crazy

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    20,875
  • Age:
    26
  • Joined:
    May 2007
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    10,012
Tell that to the 10 year old boy who used an ar to shoot 2 armed theifs while him and his little sister were home alone.



#4
Herschel Talker

Herschel Talker

    Disney Dawg

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    10,590
  • Age:
    32
  • Joined:
    Nov 2006
  • Location:
    Greenville, SC
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    6,620
Guys, if you read the 2nd Amendment, this ruling makes sense:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  Unless their arms look big and scary, then none of this applies.


Posted Image
Formerly known as gatorhater

#5
Dawgfan4life24

Dawgfan4life24
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    10,739
  • Age:
    27
  • Joined:
    Oct 2011
  • Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    3,771
UnPosted Imageing believable. Liberals are at it again. Posted Image that judge.

Rant over.

What exactly does this ruling mean? People in Maryland cant buy AR-15's now?

Posted Image

Georgia Bulldogs 5-1 (3-1)

Posted Image


#6
GatorUnvrsty

GatorUnvrsty

    AdminisGator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    25,654
  • Joined:
    Dec 2006
  • Location:
    The Beach, The Mountains, U Pick
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    4,515
Actually, the SCOTUS ruling is based almost entirely on self-defense rights of citizens; and it's a good thing it was, or the ruling may not have gone our way at all.

Heller said the 2nd Amendment means American citizens are in fact allowed to keep and bear arms for reasons such as self-defense; rejecting the argument that American citizens are allowed only to possess weapons as members of or for participation in state militias.

However, the regulation of those firearms, basically the right to decide what firearms are and aren't legal for Americans to possess, was retained by the federal government and by individual states, as it has always been since the advent of the 2A.

Hard to believe all the Constitutional scholars and lawyers haven't even read the decision.
Posted ImagePosted Image
. _ "Ethos Anthropos Daimon"

#7
GatorUnvrsty

GatorUnvrsty

    AdminisGator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    25,654
  • Joined:
    Dec 2006
  • Location:
    The Beach, The Mountains, U Pick
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    4,515
Oh, and just because some federal judge somewhere tries to circumvent the legislature with a ruling like this doesn't mean it will stand up; higher courts have been striking down rulings like this repeatedly over the last couple of years because they are determined to be unreasonable and infringe on a citizen's right to own weapons for self-defense.

I'm trying to figure out how a federal judge rules on a single state's rights and regulations, though; something's missing... need a link to the original story.

EDIT: Ahh, I knew something was wrong with the OP. No federal judge banned anything. Maryland already had a ban on AR and AK style weapons; and plaintiffs challenging the law took it up the chain of courts until it hit the federal bench.

The judge ruled that Maryland has the right as a state to regulate which weapons it deems legal for its citizens. Probably won't stand up to challenges though; although the state will still be able to set so many conditions for ownership that it'd be next to impossible to have one.

http://www.guns.com/...us-and-unusual/

Edited by GatorUnvrsty, 14 August 2014 - 08:00 AM.

Posted ImagePosted Image
. _ "Ethos Anthropos Daimon"

#8
BlackSheep 171

BlackSheep 171

    Somebody's gotta go back and get a shitload of dimes

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    4,869
  • Age:
    30
  • Joined:
    Jun 2010
  • Location:
    OKlahoma
  • Cash:
    150
  • High Fives:
    1,577
Wasn't surprised when the story said "she".

I have an AR-15 and it is by far my favorite weapon to go shoot for fun, but its not going to be the first weapon i reach for if someone breaks into my house.
Murray.jpg

#18 Oklahoma 5-2 (2-2) vs Iowa State 2-4 (0-3) Nov 1st

#9
possumslayer

possumslayer

    Orange & White Supremacist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    7,499
  • Age:
    48
  • Joined:
    Oct 2013
  • Location:
    Lincoln county Tennessee
  • Cash:
    1,700
  • High Fives:
    3,488
Guns kill

#10
GatorUnvrsty

GatorUnvrsty

    AdminisGator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    25,654
  • Joined:
    Dec 2006
  • Location:
    The Beach, The Mountains, U Pick
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    4,515

View PostBlackSheep 171, on 14 August 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

Wasn't surprised when the story said "she".

I have an AR-15 and it is by far my favorite weapon to go shoot for fun, but its not going to be the first weapon i reach for if someone breaks into my house.

Yep, I've got a Saiga 7.62, but it's the last thing I'd grab, too... don't think my neighbors 2 houses over would appreciate bullets ending up on their kids' beds (as has happened repeatedly whenever somebody chooses to fire a high-powered rifle in an urban or suburban setting).
Posted ImagePosted Image
. _ "Ethos Anthropos Daimon"

#11
Herschel Talker

Herschel Talker

    Disney Dawg

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    10,590
  • Age:
    32
  • Joined:
    Nov 2006
  • Location:
    Greenville, SC
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    6,620
It brings up an interesting question on what constitutes "arms."  I've never really read up on it or thought about it much.

It seems to me that nuclear weapons, artillery, tanks, fighter jets, etc. would not be considered "arms" that would fall under 2nd amendment protection.  But what about something like an automatic machine gun?  Perhaps "arms" in the Constitutional sense are weapons that would typically be used in individual combat?

I think part of the intent of the 2nd Amendment to allow militias to keep the federal military in check has been completely lost due to military advances.  But I'd be interested to hear thoughts from some of you in the peanut gallery who are better versed on this than I am.
Posted Image
Formerly known as gatorhater

#12
GatorUnvrsty

GatorUnvrsty

    AdminisGator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    25,654
  • Joined:
    Dec 2006
  • Location:
    The Beach, The Mountains, U Pick
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    4,515

View PostHerschel Talker, on 14 August 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

It brings up an interesting question on what constitutes "arms."  I've never really read up on it or thought about it much.

It seems to me that nuclear weapons, artillery, tanks, fighter jets, etc. would not be considered "arms" that would fall under 2nd amendment protection.  But what about something like an automatic machine gun?  Perhaps "arms" in the Constitutional sense are weapons that would typically be used in individual combat?

I think part of the intent of the 2nd Amendment to allow militias to keep the federal military in check has been completely lost due to military advances.  But I'd be interested to hear thoughts from some of you in the peanut gallery who are better versed on this than I am.

Well, they're all arms; there's small arms and then there's artillery, tanks, etc.. And that ability to repel a tyrannical government is part of the 2A; although we can't exactly have folks parking their tanks in the driveway, their fighter jets in the garage, and storing their nukes in the gun safe.

But there are already enough of us armed that our government would never be able to just steamroll over the populace. You have to consider that they'd never be able to use anything but small arms domestically anyway because of collateral damage and fatalities.

So, with millions of armed citizens, we already make up a significant deterrent to any aggression. No citizenry is as well-armed as Americans, and there are much less prepared groups knocking down their governments right and left these last few years.

Also consider that they'd have to convince their own soldiers to assault other Americans, maybe even friends and family; and you realize that we don't have to actually be as well armed as our federal government to resist effectively should it go haywire on us... soldiers simply won't continue to kill Americans as casualties on both sides mount.

At this point, with so many individual gun owners and households, it's virtually impossible for anyone to disarm Americans by force.
Posted ImagePosted Image
. _ "Ethos Anthropos Daimon"

#13
Herschel Talker

Herschel Talker

    Disney Dawg

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    10,590
  • Age:
    32
  • Joined:
    Nov 2006
  • Location:
    Greenville, SC
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    6,620

View PostGatorUnvrsty, on 14 August 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

Well, they're all arms; there's small arms and then there's artillery, tanks, etc.. And that ability to repel a tyrannical government is part of the 2A; although we can't exactly have folks parking their tanks in the driveway, their fighter jets in the garage, and storing their nukes in the gun safe.

But there are already enough of us armed that our government would never be able to just steamroll over the populace. You have to consider that they'd never be able to use anything but small arms domestically anyway because of collateral damage and fatalities.

So, with millions of armed citizens, we already make up a significant deterrent to any aggression. No citizenry is as well-armed as Americans, and there are much less prepared groups knocking down their governments right and left these last few years.

Also consider that they'd have to convince their own soldiers to assault other Americans, maybe even friends and family; and you realize that we don't have to actually be as well armed as our federal government to resist effectively should it go haywire on us... soldiers simply won't continue to kill Americans as casualties on both sides mount.

At this point, with so many individual gun owners and households, it's virtually impossible for anyone to disarm Americans by force.

I see what you're saying, but where should the line be drawn?  It's somewhere between a .22 and a nuclear missile.  What constitutes which arms the citizenry is allowed to bear?
Posted Image
Formerly known as gatorhater

#14
Bigdaddydog1

Bigdaddydog1
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    2,367
  • Joined:
    Jun 2010
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    505
Don't worry !   it wont be long before the new laws are very clear.    No weapons shall be possessed or owned by citizens in the US.

#15
SECorBust

SECorBust
  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    7,891
  • Age:
    36
  • Joined:
    May 2007
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    1,423
I see the NRA fear wagon is out in force.

Posted Image







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users