U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules
Source:
NBC/Associated Press
URL Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new ... al-appeals-court-rules-n724106
Published: Feb 22, 2018
Author: AP
Post Date: 2018-02-26 10:21:11 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 884
Comments: 12
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.
In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it's "unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment." 
"It's a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it's en-banc and for the strength of its decision," Frosh said, noting that all of the court's judges participated.
Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn't even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority "has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms." He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.
"For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland's law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand," Traxler wrote.
National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said, "It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected 'arm' under the Second Amendment." She added that the majority opinion "clearly ignores the Supreme Court's guidance from District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are 'in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.'"
The NRA estimates there are 5 million to 10 million AR-15s — one of the weapons banned under Maryland's law — in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes. Asked about an appeal, Baker said the NRA is exploring all options.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ri Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by by the Se by by the Second Amendment.
The District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) court ruling was very narrow. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment protected the use of handguns in the home for self-defense from federal infringement. That's it.
Later, the court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) that it also protected the right against state infringement.
So the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is correct that the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment. That doesn't mean those guns are illegal -- just that the second amendment doesn't protect them.
By the way, the Constitution of Maryland contains no provision protecting the right for individuals to keep and bear arms.
#3. To: misterwhite (#1)
So the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is correct that the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment. That doesn't mean those guns are illegal -- just that the second amendment doesn't protect them.
Isnt that basically the same?
If you have no second amendment right of protection all weapons are illegal once any govenrment body deems them to be illegal. Then you the peon I mean citizen have to prove you are not breaking the law or comply which means comply.
#4. To: Justified (#3)
If you have no second amendment right of protection all weapons are illegal once any govenrment body deems them to be illegal.
True. Once any government body deems them to be illegal.
But AR-15's are legal in just about every state, even though they're not protected by the second amendment.
Replies to Comment # 4.
But AR-15's are legal in just about every state, even though they're not protected by the second amendment.
Which is absurd being that the Second Amendment is about personal protection and militia which is weapons of war ie AR15.
Second Amendment is not about hunting its about peons having the right to rebel against the government if leaders gets out of hand.
In my opinion if Ar15's/Ak47's weapons are not covered by the second Amendment then nothing is covered by the Second Amendment. If it only protects the nice weapons the problem is there are no nice weapons hence no 2nd Amendment.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]