|
|
| People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules (1344324) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1344324) | |
People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 08:02:00 2016 Certain semiautomatic firearms deserve the highest level of protection the Constitution allows, says appellate court |
|
|
| (1344336) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Feb 5 09:44:30 2016, in response to People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules, posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 08:02:00 2016. OK, this ruling directly conflicts with the Supreme Court's refusal to review NY's law, which puts severe restrictions on the rights of citizens to own semi-automatic weapons.So it looks like the court is stuck reviewing them both now. My bet is they will uphold both NY and MD. If there had been 5 votes to overturn NY,they would have reviewed it and done so. I predict 6-3 in support of NY's and MD's laws, though 5-4 wouldn't totally surprise me. |
|
|
| (1344343) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 5 10:14:34 2016, in response to People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules, posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 08:02:00 2016. Outstanding ruling by Democratic appointees. |
|
|
| (1344362) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own "Assault" Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 5 11:43:52 2016, in response to People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules, posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 08:02:00 2016. "Certain"?? Try "all". "Assault weapons" is a BS term made up by the media. |
|
|
| (1344367) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 12:00:00 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own "Assault" Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 5 11:43:52 2016. Wrong. The term goes back to the 1970's when it was first used by the U.S. Army to describe a grenade launcher designed for use with the M16. |
|
|
| (1344453) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 5 16:43:29 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 12:00:00 2016. For once Olog is basically right.If the term was started by the Army to describe a grenade launcher (which are not legal) but not the M16 itself, then it goes without saying that the M16 and its equivalents are not assault weapons. The term as applied to regular semi-automatic weapons has been made up by the media and by the anti-Second Amendment crowd. |
|
|
| (1344458) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Feb 5 17:11:48 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 5 16:43:29 2016. The term as applied to regular semi-automatic weapons has been made up by the media and by the anti-Second Amendment crowd.Inherent in your sentence is the assumption that ownership of semi-automatic weapons is protected by the 2nd amendment. Justices Kennedy and/or Roberts might disagree. |
|
|
| (1344460) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 5 17:30:14 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 5 17:11:48 2016. The media has made the term "assault weapon" the equivalent of what the Seven Dirty Words are to the First Amendment.Something that has been irrationally ostracized. It would be unfortunate if the nation's highest court starts carving out exemptions to constitutional rights based on made-up hysteria rather than on sound legal reasoning. |
|
|
| (1344472) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Feb 5 18:18:57 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 5 17:30:14 2016. AlM lost to me yesterday. To you today.w1n/ |
|
|
| (1344490) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Feb 5 21:02:19 2016, in response to People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules, posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 08:02:00 2016. LOL - "A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit " - in a 2-1 split. This may well be appealed to the full Circuit and overturned. If not, SCOTUS will overturn as AlM suggests. |
|
|
| (1344498) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 21:42:40 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 5 16:43:29 2016. According to Wikipedia: "Prior to its use in U.S. firearms laws, the term "assault weapon" was limited to naming certain military weapons, for example, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle, or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a rocket launcher introduced in 1984."I was specifically referring to "assault weapon," not "assault" rifles. Another opinion comes from Phillip Peterson, the author of Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons, who wrote: "The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun." According to the Associated Press Stylebook, the media should differentiate between "assault rifles," which are capable of fully automatic firing, and "assault weapons," which are semiautomatic and "not synonymous with assault rifle." |
|
|
| (1344500) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 21:44:06 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules, posted by italianstallion on Fri Feb 5 21:02:19 2016. But until it's overturned by SCOTUS or in an en banc hearing, it's the law in the 4th Circuit. |
|
|
| (1344504) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Feb 5 21:49:31 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules, posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 21:44:06 2016. Nope.The 4th Circuit's decision didn't outright strike down the Maryland legislation. Instead, it instructed a lower court to subject the provision to the higher legal standard, meaning more litigation and the possibility of a future showdown at the Supreme Court -- though maybe not yet, according to Winkler. So don't go bringing your AR-15 with 100 bullet magazine into Maryland just yet. |
|
|
| (1344509) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 5 21:59:15 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 21:42:40 2016. According to the Associated Press StylebookAnd the AP wonders why they're so hated. |
|
|
| (1344543) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Feb 5 23:43:28 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 5 17:11:48 2016. A semi-automatic weapon is not an “assault rifle.” |
|
|
| (1344547) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 6 01:01:21 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 12:00:00 2016. Citation?The WaPo seems to think it was made up by the founder of the Violence Policy Center. Others think the gun industry made it up. I'm sticking to what I said originally. |
|
|
| (1344548) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 6 01:09:52 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Feb 5 18:18:57 2016. Dave seems to have made things up. |
|
|
| (1344549) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own 'Assault' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 6 01:10:42 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules, posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 21:44:06 2016. The USSC has no right to overturn the Constitution. |
|
|
| (1344581) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Feb 6 09:19:15 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 6 01:01:21 2016. Apparently gun industry marketing came up with it. Read back in this very thread. |
|
|
| (1344584) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Feb 6 10:06:09 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by Dave on Fri Feb 5 21:42:40 2016. I was specifically referring to "assault weapon," not "assault" rifles.OK. But this court has declared that so-called assault RIFLES (like the AR-15, AK-47, etc) are constitutional not the M-230 (the M-16 with affixed grenade launcher). Their decision was correct. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun. Interesting. I didn't know that. According to the Associated Press Stylebook, the media should differentiate between "assault rifles," which are capable of fully automatic firing, and "assault weapons," which are semiautomatic and "not synonymous with assault rifle." I disagree. This wouldn't be helpful to most people and would also be too confusing. Something like the AK-47 should be called either term regardless of their potential use in fully automatic mode. These should also be fully legal. Purely military-grade weapons OTOH (like grenade launchers) whose uses are specifically designed to cause indiscriminate killing should be called something else and continue to be outside of the scope of the Second Amendment. |
|
|
| (1344585) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Feb 6 10:06:43 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 5 21:59:15 2016. Who hates the AP? |
|
|
| (1344586) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Feb 6 10:13:38 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 5 17:30:14 2016. IAWTP |
|
|
| (1344588) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 10:22:15 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by SMAZ on Sat Feb 6 10:06:43 2016. Olog.Posters to the Free Republic. The intersection of those two sets. |
|
|
| (1344589) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 10:24:31 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 5 17:30:14 2016. I agree. The Supreme Court should not allow limits on either "assault weapons" or "assault rifles."They should allow limits on ownership of "semi-automatic guns." |
|
|
| (1344590) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Feb 6 10:26:10 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 5 21:49:31 2016. I can't see how Maryland's law can survive under strict scrutiny review. |
|
|
| (1344591) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Feb 6 10:27:42 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 10:24:31 2016. They should allow limits on ownership of "semi-automatic guns."On what basis? |
|
|
| (1344592) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Feb 6 10:32:07 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 10:24:31 2016. I still believe that the Framers had the Minutemen in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment. If this case ever gets to SCOTUS, an interesting question will be whether these "assault weapons", something no author of the Constitution could imagine, falls within the "militia clause", because these were originally developed for battlefield use..just saying... |
|
|
| (1344594) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 10:42:52 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules, posted by SMAZ on Sat Feb 6 10:26:10 2016. My prediction is that the legal process will not allow Maryland's law to be overturned until the Supreme Court reviews. |
|
|
| (1344595) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Feb 6 10:43:13 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Feb 6 10:32:07 2016. Scalia's key words in Heller were "in common use".These types of weapon qualify. |
|
|
| (1344596) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 10:44:20 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by SMAZ on Sat Feb 6 10:27:42 2016. See Heller. Scalia said there could be limits on gun ownership and usage. |
|
|
| (1344597) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 10:59:56 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by SMAZ on Sat Feb 6 10:43:13 2016. Dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned.A magazine holding 100 bullets could be deemed dangerous by a state. |
|
|
| (1344601) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Feb 6 11:56:54 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 10:24:31 2016. Do you even know what “semi-automatic” is? |
|
|
| (1344604) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by OCTD 2039 on Sat Feb 6 12:19:23 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Feb 6 11:56:54 2016. A single-fire self-loading weapon.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm |
|
|
| (1344605) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Feb 6 12:19:59 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by OCTD 2039 on Sat Feb 6 12:19:23 2016. Is your name AlM? |
|
|
| (1344606) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat Feb 6 12:23:26 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 5 21:49:31 2016. What "nope"? The 4th Cir. vacated the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim and ordered a rehearing. That means the Maryland law stands until the District Court rules otherwise. But I can see your confusion since based on the thread heading it read like I was saying the law in the circuit was that there is a fundamental right to own assault weapons. That's not what I meant. |
|
|
| (1344607) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 12:28:35 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Feb 6 11:56:54 2016. Yes. |
|
|
| (1344608) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 12:29:37 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules, posted by Dave on Sat Feb 6 12:23:26 2016. Therefore you agree with my statement.So don't go bringing your AR-15 with 100 bullet magazine into Maryland just yet. |
|
|
| (1344615) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Feb 6 13:55:59 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 12:28:35 2016. So why are you thinking it's a sufficient feature of an assault weapon or assault rifle? |
|
|
| (1344625) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat Feb 6 14:20:39 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 12:29:37 2016. You are correct, sir! |
|
|
| (1344635) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own 'Assault' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Feb 6 15:20:11 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own 'Assault' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 6 01:10:42 2016. Hey, it's Captan Obvious! |
|
|
| (1344642) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 16:34:28 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Feb 6 13:55:59 2016. I said don't ban assault rifles or weapons. Allow the possibility of banning semi-automatic guns.My reasoning is that the ability to keep on pressing the trigger again and again without reloading, perhaps 100 times, makes a gun sufficiently dangerous, and meant for offense rather than defense, that I think a jurisdiction has the right to ban its ownership. |
|
|
| (1344655) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Feb 6 18:35:43 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 16:34:28 2016. A semi-automatic gun doesn't imply a 100 round magazine. |
|
|
| (1344656) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 20:17:06 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Feb 6 18:35:43 2016. True. I said limits on semi-automatic guns. I never addressed the issue of banning all semi-automatic guns. |
|
|
| (1344686) | |
Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules! |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Feb 6 22:33:14 2016, in response to Re: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own ''Assault'' Weapons, Court Rules!, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 6 20:17:06 2016. Limiting the size of magazines evades the entire argument. It's not a ban on any gun. |
|
|