‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

[GMDino]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/military-style-firearms-second-amendment_us_58aceeebe4b0d0a6ef4634f8?pt0fbzywtu1irafw29&

Quote:A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a Maryland ban on assault-style rifles and large-capacity magazines isn’t subject to the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms.


The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, reconsidered a divided ruling issued last year that found citizens have a “fundamental right” to own these weapons, and that laws restricting the right deserve the toughest level of constitutional scrutiny.

Writing for a nine-judge majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King said that weapons such as M-16s and functionally equivalent guns that “are most useful in military service” aren’t protected by the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision. That ruling limited the Second Amendment’s “core protection” to the ownership of handguns for purposes of self-defense within the home.

“Put simply,” King wrote, “we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”

The court separately rejected claims that Maryland’s assault weapons ban violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

In 2013, then-Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) signed Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. The 4th Circuit ruling begins by recounting this and other high-profile mass shootings ― including those in San Bernardino, California, and at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

The Maryland law, which imposes criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for violators, was challenged in federal court by two Maryland gun owners and a number of gun shops and gun rights’ groups.

In a separate opinion agreeing with the ruling, U.S. Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote that legislatures are better equipped than courts to tackle the problem of gun control, and thus judges should be wary of “constitutionalizing” these legislative choices.
“To say in the wake of so many mass shootings in so many localities across this country that the people themselves are now to be rendered newly powerless, that all they can do is stand by and watch as federal courts design their destiny ― this would deliver a body blow to democracy as we have known it since the very founding of this nation,” Wilkinson wrote.

Four judges dissented from the ruling, which they said effectively allows “the Government ... to take semiautomatic rifles away from law-abiding American citizens.”

“In concluding that the Second Amendment does not even apply, the majority has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge William Traxler.

If appealed, at least four justices on the Supreme Court would need to agree to review the ruling. Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee to fill the court’s vacancy, lacks a clear record on gun rights, but received a ringing endorsement from the National Rifle Association.

In recent years, the high court has been reluctant to clarify if the scope of the Second Amendment protections it announced in the Heller decision should be expanded beyond handguns, or to contexts that do not involve protecting one’s home.

In June, the court declined to review a challenge to a similar assault weapons ban enacted in Connecticut in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.

I don't know about this.

If you take the "militia" part literally wouldn't weapons of military service be covered?

But then I don't believe even a small percentage of gun owners want those guns or would be willing to join a militia either.

Tough call.

PS: Still not taking away anyone's right to own a gun.

[*michaelsean*]

are they just saying, "Look these guns weren't included in the SC ruling, and it's not up to us to include them?" Agree with banning the guns are not, I don't mind a court ruling that way at all.

[Yojimbo]

Hopefully some originalist judges like the newest Supreme Court nominee will fix this ruling and only allow ball and powder muskets like the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution.

[Belsnickel]

(02-24-2017, 10:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/military-style-firearms-second-amendment_us_58aceeebe4b0d0a6ef4634f8?pt0fbzywtu1irafw29&


I don't know about this.

If you take the "militia" part literally wouldn't weapons of military service be covered?

But then I don't believe even a small percentage of gun owners want those guns or would be willing to join a militia either.

Tough call.

PS: Still not taking away anyone's right to own a gun.

For 221 years, the 2nd was not interpreted by the courts as the right to private firearm ownership, but rather the right to take up arms in the military. So what we will see happen now to the amendment will be a very interesting thing.

[Au165]

(02-24-2017, 10:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/military-style-firearms-second-amendment_us_58aceeebe4b0d0a6ef4634f8?pt0fbzywtu1irafw29&



I don't know about this.

If you take the "militia" part literally wouldn't weapons of military service be covered?

But then I don't believe even a small percentage of gun owners want those guns or would be willing to join a militia either.

Tough call.

PS: Still not taking away anyone's right to own a gun.

The constitution doesn't say you have a right to any arms you feel like, only that you have the right to keep and bear arms.  I think most people would agree that regular citizens should not posses rocket launchers and nukes, however they are considered "arms" by definition. Who gets to determine what those arms are? Well that would be the legislators who have decided as the voted appointees of their constituents that this is where they would like to draw the line.

All freedoms have limits this one is no different but for some reason there are people who feel like the 2nd amendment should be practically limitless.

[GMDino]

(02-24-2017, 11:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: For 221 years, the 2nd was not interpreted by the courts as the right to private firearm ownership, but rather the right to take up arms in the military. So what we will see happen now to the amendment will be a very interesting thing.

That's why I am a bit torn on this one.

(02-24-2017, 11:07 AM)Au165 Wrote: The constitution doesn't say you have a right to any arms you feel like, only that you have the right to keep and bear arms.  I think most people would agree that regular citizens should not posses rocket launchers and nukes, however they are considered "arms" by definition. Who gets to determine what those arms are? Well that would be the legislators who have decided as the voted appointees of their constituents that this is where they would like to draw the line.

All freedoms have limits this one is no different but for some reason there are people who feel like the 2nd amendment should be practically limitless.

I've felt that way also.  I'm just not sure where the line gets drawn based on court decisions.

[Au165]

(02-24-2017, 11:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: I've felt that way also.  I'm just not sure where the line gets drawn based on court decisions.

I think the Legislator draws that line, and as long as that line isn't a ban on them, or to ban them through some back door restriction like outlawing bullets, then that is the proper application of our system of checks and balances.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-24-2017, 11:14 AM)Au165 Wrote: I think the Legislator draws that line, and as long as that line isn't a ban on them, or to ban them through some back door restriction like outlawing bullets, then that is the proper application of our system of checks and balances.

But it's a constitutional amendment so do the state legislatures have that right?

[Belsnickel]

(02-24-2017, 11:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But it's a constitutional amendment so do the state legislatures have that right?

Yes. Unless the courts say otherwise or there is a superseding federal law, the states have that ability to place restrictions. As of 2008, the courts have said that the 2nd affords citizens the right to private firearm ownership unconnected to military service. However, they have upheld limitations on the types of weapons and the ability to carry weapons outside of the home that states have put in place.

That being said, the case law is a little interesting on this. I was mistaken on the ruling of individual right to own firearms, as that ruling actually occurred in 1886 from what I can tell, though the 2008 decision had a much larger impact. What I have also found is that previous case law would seem to indicate that the 2nd could apply to military style weapons. Expect this to hit SCOTUS, because case law could support this being overturned.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-24-2017, 11:14 AM)Au165 Wrote: I think the Legislator draws that line, and as long as that line isn't a ban on them, or to ban them through some back door restriction like outlawing bullets, then that is the proper application of our system of checks and balances.

(02-24-2017, 11:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But it's a constitutional amendment so do the state legislatures have that right?

Yes and no to both of these statements.  Leaving it to the legislature creates a confusing mish mash of firearms law that vary wildly by state.  As is, someone from Texas moving to California would have to, if they followed the law, sell a large percentage of their legally purchased firearms and magazines.  Additionally, people have been arrested for concealed carry simply for crossing a state border.  At one moment they were a law abiding citizen and the next they were a felon by dint of geography.  I'm not saying this is an epidemic but it illustrates the problems with allowing this issue to be decided on a state by state basis.  Creating felons out of law abiding citizens is bad legislation.

The words "common sense" get used a lot in the gun control argument.  This is just a semantic ploy to cast opponents in a poor light.  After all, who could be against something that's common sense?  Usually, or almost always, what is proposed is not common sense at all.  If you used common sense then .50 rifles wouldn't be banned in CA when a .416 Barrett is at least as powerful and deadly, or a .338 Lapua for that matter.  The problem is that these laws are frequently drafted by politicians with zero to less than zero knowledge of firearms.  Real common sense legislation would be to ban something that has no practical civilian purpose; i.e. fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, artillery, armed tanks etc.  Any person knowledgeable about firearms will tell you that what is commonly mislabeled an "assault weapon" absolutely has a legitimate self defense civilian purpose.  Hand guns are not the ideal means of self defense and are only useful in that they are more easily portable and concealed.  

The sad thing is that there is absolutely room for common ground on this issue, law abiding citizens who are pro 2A don't want guns in the hands of criminals either.  A large percentage of the gun control side of this equation is, unfortunately, disingenuous about what their real goal is and thus aren't trusted on any control measure by the pro 2A side.

[Belsnickel]

(02-24-2017, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Any person knowledgeable about firearms will tell you that what is commonly mislabeled an "assault weapon" absolutely has a legitimate self defense civilian purpose.  Hand guns are not the ideal means of self defense and are only useful in that they are more easily portable and concealed.  

I disagree. I've grown up with firearms in my life, been an NRA certified instructor and taught courses for the BSA. The best home defense weapon is a large caliber handgun or a shotgun. Out of the home, a handgun serves the purpose better. Self-defense situations outside of the home are often in close quarters where the "assault weapons" that would not qualify as pistols would be unwieldy, and since the vast majority of self-defense situations are over within 5-6 shots (actually 2-3, but expanding to 5-6 would increase the percentage) from the last data I saw from the NRA, a high capacity handgun would also be unnecessary.

[GMDino]

(02-24-2017, 11:14 AM)Au165 Wrote: I think the Legislator draws that line, and as long as that line isn't a ban on them, or to ban them through some back door restriction like outlawing bullets, then that is the proper application of our system of checks and balances.

If that's the case then it ends up swinging one way to the other over time.  Each state having different ownership rights.

This, IMHO, is one of those things that should be settled on a federal level and applied equally.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-24-2017, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes and no to both of these statements.  Leaving it to the legislature creates a confusing mish mash of firearms law that vary wildly by state.  As is, someone from Texas moving to California would have to, if they followed the law, sell a large percentage of their legally purchased firearms and magazines.  Additionally, people have been arrested for concealed carry simply for crossing a state border.  At one moment they were a law abiding citizen and the next they were a felon by dint of geography.  I'm not saying this is an epidemic but it illustrates the problems with allowing this issue to be decided on a state by state basis.  Creating felons out of law abiding citizens is bad legislation.

The words "common sense" get used a lot in the gun control argument.  This is just a semantic ploy to cast opponents in a poor light.  After all, who could be against something that's common sense?  Usually, or almost always, what is proposed is not common sense at all.  If you used common sense then .50 rifles wouldn't be banned in CA when a .416 Barrett is at least as powerful and deadly, or a .338 Lapua for that matter.  The problem is that these laws are frequently drafted by politicians with zero to less than zero knowledge of firearms.  Real common sense legislation would be to ban something that has no practical civilian purpose; i.e. fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, artillery, armed tanks etc.  Any person knowledgeable about firearms will tell you that what is commonly mislabeled an "assault weapon" absolutely has a legitimate self defense civilian purpose.  Hand guns are not the ideal means of self defense and are only useful in that they are more easily portable and concealed.  

The sad thing is that there is absolutely room for common ground on this issue, law abiding citizens who are pro 2A don't want guns in the hands of criminals either.  A large percentage of the gun control side of this equation is, unfortunately, disingenuous about what their real goal is and thus aren't trusted on any control measure by the pro 2A side.

I don't know why we can't have a simple law saying explosives aren't arms.  It would take away a lot of the extreme stupid arguments.  "Well does that mean you can own a howitzer?"

Also I am no expert on firearms, and especially not rifles, but it seems we like to outlaw things that look nasty, but are less dangerous than many other rifles.  I am thinking that was what you were alluding to with the Barrett and the Lapau, but I really don't know what those weapons are.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-24-2017, 12:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree. I've grown up with firearms in my life, been an NRA certified instructor and taught courses for the BSA. The best home defense weapon is a large caliber handgun or a shotgun. Out of the home, a handgun serves the purpose better. Self-defense situations outside of the home are often in close quarters where the "assault weapons" that would not qualify as pistols would be unwieldy, and since the vast majority of self-defense situations are over within 5-6 shots from the last data I saw from the NRA, a high capacity handgun would also be unnecessary.

In fairness he said they have legitimate self-protection purposes.

[Au165]

(02-24-2017, 12:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: If that's the case then it ends up swinging one way to the other over time.  Each state having different ownership rights.

This, IMHO, is one of those things that should be settled on a federal level and applied equally.

I think it should swing one way or another over time. The world changes and we evolve, I think the fact that we look at something written 200 years ago and expect it to fit well in today's society is one of the biggest issues. Technology, which firearms are, should not be an inalienable right without reproach. Technology evolves and it fits into society different over centuries yet we want to cling to a rule made based on technology that was available at that time.

Looking forward when we develop Starwars style blasters that disintegrate things and people, is that now arms that people need to keep and bear? What if it is a shape of a handgun, but only difference is the destructive force of the projectile? We are heading for even more confusion as the technology inevitably keeps evolving.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-24-2017, 12:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree. I've grown up with firearms in my life, been an NRA certified instructor and taught courses for the BSA. The best home defense weapon is a large caliber handgun or a shotgun. Out of the home, a handgun serves the purpose better. Self-defense situations outside of the home are often in close quarters where the "assault weapons" that would not qualify as pistols would be unwieldy, and since the vast majority of self-defense situations are over within 5-6 shots from the last data I saw from the NRA, a high capacity handgun would also be unnecessary.

You're certainly entitled to disagree, but you'd also have to admit there is nothing close to a consensus on this in the firearms community.  In the home a shotgun is no less unwieldy than your standard AR.  If you're worried about over penetration then there are bullets designed not to over penetrate.  You know we both agree on open carry and it's uselessness so of course a handgun is the only practical solution for self defense outside the home.  As to standard capacity magazines I'd say it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.  Which is, of course, a huge reason people concealed carry in the first place.  The fact that the vast majority of self defense situations last less than ten shots is going to be of no comfort to the person whose situation goes over ten rounds and they run dry.

[Belsnickel]

(02-24-2017, 12:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Also I am no expert on firearms, and especially not rifles, but it seems we like to outlaw things that look nasty, but are less dangerous than many other rifles.  I am thinking that was what you were alluding to with the Barrett and the Lapau, but I really don't know what those weapons are.

While those are arms, that is more in reference to the rounds they use which are also used in other arms. There is a round called the .50 BMG, which is a half-inch in diameter and is used in anti-material sniper rifles. It is the high profile round used for those, however it is being replaced with the .416 Barrett because the round has a similar charge to it, but a smaller projectile, meaning it will have a higher velocity and often travel further and straighter. The .338 Lapua is a similar situation, though more of an anti-personnel round for long distance shooting. This isn't to say the .50 BMG and .416 Barret arms are not used for anti-personnel action, just that they weren't technically designated for that because according to modern conventions we are not supposed to use rounds larger than .30 caliber on personnel in warfare.

[Au165]

(02-24-2017, 12:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know why we can't have a simple law saying explosives aren't arms.  It would take away a lot of the extreme stupid arguments.  "Well does that mean you can own a howitzer?"

This is the whole issue with the amendment we are guessing what they "really" meant. If you needed a militia to possibly have to rise up again, or fight a war, then that militia probably needed both small arms as well as artillery.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-24-2017, 12:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know why we can't have a simple law saying explosives aren't arms.  It would take away a lot of the extreme stupid arguments.  "Well does that mean you can own a howitzer?"

Also I am no expert on firearms, and especially not rifles, but it seems we like to outlaw things that look nasty, but are less dangerous than many other rifles.  I am thinking that was what you were alluding to with the Barrett and the Lapau, but I really don't know what those weapons are.

Yes to the first, it would simplify things.  As to the second, that falls into the category of lawmakers with zero knowledge of fire arms.  On of the key features singled out for banning something as an "assault weapon" is a pistol style grip.   A pistol style grip does not increase the lethality of a firearm nor does it make it easier to manipulate or fire faster.  Another feature is a flash hider, which, again, has zero impact as stated above.

As to the caliber point I made, .50 BMG has been outlawed in CA, it's "too powerful".  There are rounds that have longer range than a .50 BMG and are at least as lethal, such as the .416 Barrett.  When you get into high powered rifle rounds lethality becomes a bit of a constant.  You get hit by any of them you're not going to fair well.  Here's a link to a picture of the rounds in question in case you're interested.  I didn't paste the pic because it a bit large.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjG4tuBhqnSAhUUWGMKHZn_BgIQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quarryhs.co.uk%2FLong%2520Range%2520Sniping.htm&psig=AFQjCNFXBEjCHdAbn1wGE-_cPIKPUkknSA&ust=1488036449072153

[Belsnickel]

(02-24-2017, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're certainly entitled to disagree, but you'd also have to admit there is nothing close to a consensus on this in the firearms community.  In the home a shotgun is no less unwieldy than your standard AR.  If you're worried about over penetration then there are bullets designed not to over penetrate.  You know we both agree on open carry and it's uselessness so of course a handgun is the only practical solution for self defense outside the home.  As to standard capacity magazines I'd say it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.  Which is, of course, a huge reason people concealed carry in the first place.  The fact that the vast majority of self defense situations last less than ten shots is going to be of no comfort to the person whose situation goes over ten rounds and they run dry.

The shotgun in the home is partially about over-penetration, but it is also about ease of use. Best home defense scenario is to get family in one room, behind barricade, and if someone comes through the door you fire into it. Shotgun will fill the opening with pellets. A rifle, especially in a high-adrenaline situation with your typical untrained civilian, runs the risk of not hitting the mark. Even if you aren't able to get into that defensive posture, the spread from a shotgun still affords someone a better chance of hitting their target.

I mean, ten years ago when I was doing this sort of thing there was a pretty good consensus on it. Shotgun was the top home defense weapon. Not sure what has changed, really.