BREAKING: 4th Circuit Upholds Maryland ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a big blow to the Second Amendment Tuesday by emphatically upholding Maryland’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ and ‘high-capacity’ magazines in the case of Kolbe v. Hogan.

In a 10-4 majority opinion, the court, which is based out of Richmond, Virginia, wrote that the Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia decision left the door open to permit governments to regulate firearms that are similar to those issued to military personnel.

“Both before and after Newtown, similar military-style rifles and detachable magazines have been used to perpetrate mass shootings in places whose names have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there,” wrote Judge Robert B. King in the majority opinion.

“We are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are ‘like’ ‘M-16 rifles’ — ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’ — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach,” King continued. “Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”

To make its case about black rifles, the opinion cites a 1994 Treasury Department study that identified certain rifle features and accessories that “serve specific, combat-functional ends.” Those include the usual suspects: flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, folding and telescoping stocks, pistol grips, grenade launchers, night sights, bayonet mounts and large capacity magazines.

“The banned assault weapons ‘are firearms designed for the battlefield, for the soldier to be able to shoot a large number of rounds across a battlefield at a high rate of speed,’” the opinion reads, citing the filings. “Their design results in ‘a capability for lethality — more wounds, more serious, in more victims — far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns.’”

Passed in the wake of Sandy Hook, Maryland’s Firearms Safety Act of 2013 banned magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds and center-fire semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and have two or more of those aforementioned scary features and accessories. Those who possessed an ‘assault weapon’ prior to 10/1/2013 were allowed to maintain possession of it provided they register it with the state authorities.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, along with two Maryland gun owners, sued the state arguing that the sweeping ban was unconstitutional because AR and AK rifle platforms are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense.

Judge William Byrd Traxler, Jr., who wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by three other judges, trashed the majority decision.

“Today the majority holds that the Government can take semiautomatic rifles away from law-abiding American citizens,” wrote Traxler. “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.”

Traxler also said that the court should apply a stricter review before the law is allowed to stand.

“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 subjected to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand,” he wrote.

This marks the fifth time a federal appeals court has rejected a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a ban on modern sporting rifles. Overall, seven states and the District of Columbia have strict bans on the ownership of black rifles.

***

My $.02. The ruling is B.S. But what’s even more frustrating is the hole in the Heller Decision that has given these appeals courts the grounds on which to uphold these asinine bans. When Scalia wrote the Heller decision, he knew he had left the door open on this issue. As he famously stated in an interview with Fox News on the constitutionality of black rifles, “It’ll have to be decided” (see video above).

“Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed,” Scalia told Fox New’s Chris Wallace. “What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation” during the founding and framing of the Constitution. Scalia gave a historical example, a “head axe,” which was banned under an affrighting statute that prohibited weapons designed to intimidate and/or scare people.

Wallace then asked Scalia about black rifles, which can fire “a hundred shots in a minute,” and whether or not those can be banned by state governments and municipalities without violating one’s right to keep and bear arms.

“The [2nd Amendment] does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried,” Scalia said. “It’s to keep and bear. So, it doesn’t apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be — it will have to be decided.”

Bottom line: until the Supreme Court takes a whack at one of these cases (the high court has turned down cases that address black rifle bans with regularity since Heller) and makes a final decision, we’re are going to be left with the current patchwork of laws that permit modern sporting rifles in some states and outlaw them in others.

With that in mind, we should be counting our blessings that we should have Trump-appointee Judge Neil Gorsuch joining the bench instead of Obama-appointee Judge Merrick Garland.

{ 79 comments… add one }
  • Boss February 27, 2017, 6:24 pm

    It is obvious this group of progressives that are attempting to imitate judges in a court of law (court of kangaroo) has ignored the phrase “shall not be infringed”. This is common among the holier than thou progs (progressives) and pretty much expected.
    What is new, formulated from the depths of pure imagination, is:
    Second Amendment does not cover ‘weapons of war’ – Judge Robert King
    The progs have also ignored ‘A well regulated Militia’
    AR15 type MSRs are not ‘weapons of war’ being semi auto only.
    They are, in fact the very epitome of what the founders would approve of sans actuality having ‘weapons of war’. The People baring a civilian version of military weapons is, in fact, training the largest militia in the world.
    Thus, when The People must defend the country, they will already be trained and ready to be well regulated!
    These thugs in black robes are attempting to strike the Second Amendment directly at it hart and reason.
    In this regard, owning an AR15 type MSR is patriotism in its highest form.
    And the court ruling and laws stifling free access to arms by The People is ‘progress’ to tyranny.
    God gave us these Rights. It is up to us to keep them.

    “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” George Washington

  • Richard Costello February 27, 2017, 5:38 am

    To the Fourth Circuit, I can see your concerns and agreed a rocket launcher may not be necessary for the general public. But I do disagree with the firearm mentioned in the Hellar decision referencing M-16 style firearms. We the people who legally purchase firearms for collection or one of many reasons should have that right. One guarantee for sure The enemies of America would not be inclined to abide by this ruling leaving honest law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. The criminal element is able to purchase M-16 or just about anything they probably would like to have, I am retired and veteran of Vietnam era and law abiding citizen of our Great country, I can understand your position but now the times have changed. Thank You, God Bless America and God Bless President Trump.

  • Mark February 26, 2017, 10:15 pm

    There is no need to call anybody names. The court has no rights to ban guns from law abiding citizens.

  • Neal Rawls February 25, 2017, 9:22 pm

    Even more than this, I’m afraid of the precedent it will set if the administration over rides state’s rights on marijuana. Once the precedent is set that the federal government can over ride state law, another administration can use it to ban firearms in states. It has taken only one man, the head of DEA to ban marijuana. If he succeeds, in the future it would be possible for one person in ATF to ban certain types of firearms. The precedent will have been set.

    • srsquidizen February 26, 2017, 7:03 am

      Federal law has ALWAYS taken precedent over state law as long as it’s a “constitutional” law (one that’s within the powers granted to the Federal government). If that weren’t true slavery could still be legal (slavery still exists of course, but now it’s an illegal activity perpetrated mostly by illegal immigrants).

      The problem lies with activist judges who rape the wording of the Constitution in order to make it fit in their liberal agenda. What part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand? OTOH, they can take a prohibition against unreasonable search & seizure (the so-called “right to privacy” which doesn’t even exist as long as the IRS does) and twist that into a right to kill unborn children on demand. Go figure.

      But Federal law always overrides state law IF it’s Constitutional of course.

  • Gandalf February 25, 2017, 6:44 pm

    “Molon labe.”

  • Derek Hannan February 25, 2017, 12:34 pm

    I’m hurt that some people here think a 223 full auto is inferior to a semi auto correct. 62 x 51. I carried an L1A1 for 20 years. I took it into conflict against AKs, armalites and full auto FALs. Excellent training with a good semi firing a good cartridge will almost always defeat good training with anything else. A burst will make men duck. Friends dropping dead around you has the same affect. Aimed fire defeats area fire.

  • Greg February 24, 2017, 10:17 pm

    Odumbo cherry picked this group of leftists who came up with demands and laws made up of smoke and mirrors. These quisling traitors should be eliminated from the courts as the liars they are.

  • Robert Garrard February 24, 2017, 4:09 pm

    So good ol semi auto s rifle s eg like rem 742? n? are banned? Shotguns too or next. ? SHUN Maryland ti/if l they rescind. And isnt Beretta leaving Akcokeek MD for the South? Hope so.

  • Peter Howe February 24, 2017, 3:01 pm

    The folks posting the panic attacks that are being used to gin up fear and discolorinstion that has has been brewing since the 60’ds, let them have their day in “court.”

  • BJG February 24, 2017, 1:27 pm

    Mike:
    Typical answer from someone like you.

  • Michael Rosenthal February 24, 2017, 1:20 pm

    At last a court with some sense. Trump is an idiot who is going to get us all killed if we don’t stand up against him. That’s what we might need the militia for. My second amendment rights have not been harmed one bit. Still have all the sensible wearpons I need

    • mpd February 24, 2017, 9:04 am

      How is this President Trump’s problem?

      This is from a very liberal court in a very liberal state; the whole issue will have to be decided at the USSC eventually, to modify or abandon Heller altogether.

    • John Murphy February 24, 2017, 9:24 am

      You are an idiot, Trump is the one fighting to keep our right to bear arms and repeal these arcane gun laws. You can’t even spell “weapons” correctly. Please crawl back under the rock from whence you came.

    • Mike February 24, 2017, 9:26 am

      “sensible weapons” If the second amendment only protects your right to own useless plinkers why have a second amendment?

    • KimberproSS February 24, 2017, 9:32 am

      As I am sure you are aware, allowing the government to meddle with any of the Bill Of Rights leaves the door open for more radical progressive liberal attacks. The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights as the overriding law of the land, the design document. It is an amazing culmination of work that has stood strong for over 200 yrs. Leave it alone and live by the document instead of trying to change it are every whim. As for Trump, he is executing his oath of office. The problem is this country has grown accustomed to the “wink and nod”, or more so the “pen and phone” of the past 8 yrs picking and choosing what laws to enforce.

    • Boz February 24, 2017, 9:36 am

      Smoke what??????

    • JT February 24, 2017, 9:39 am

      You selfish ignorant little twit. You\’re fine with any court impossing restrictions on the 2nd amendment unless it personally affects YOU and the firearms YOU own. There\’s a name for people like you within the firearms community – \”Fudd\”, as in Elmer Fudd. Well I\’ve got news for you Elmer, the courts will start with so called \”assault rifles\”, but don\’t kid yourself, their ultimate aim is to eventually ban ALL firearms in civilian hands, including your hunting rifles. Don\’t believe me? Just look at the campaign against tobacco – it started slowly with a ban on smoking in the workplace, then bars and now in some areas it\’s even banned outdoors in public parks! The point is it\’s INCREMENTAL. They start slow and nibble away at your rights, bit by bit. If you don\’t stand up now for our collective right to bear arms, we will eventually have none. What is it with liberals and the courts? Can they not understand the simple phrase \”the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\”

      • Ray February 24, 2017, 11:06 am

        JT…tobacco is a bad analogy and not required to defend the 2nd amendment. Tobacco use infringes adversely on people indulging in it and those around them. The campaign against tobacco is to protect citizen rights from actual harm being inflicted on them against their will. If people want to smoke they are free to so so as long as they don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. An individual’s right to keep and bare arms has no actual impact on anyone else’s rights. But, there is a campaign to brainwash the ignorant masses that never learned the art of critical thinking to perceive ownership of firearms as a danger; and somehow it is adversely affecting their mental health and causing them harm by forcing them to live in fear, so something should be done.

        • JT February 24, 2017, 12:43 pm

          Ray, you totally missed my point – it\’s the process I was comparing, not the right to smoke vs. the right to bear arms. Other than that misunderstanding, I agree whole-heatedly with your post.

        • Irondoor February 24, 2017, 8:37 pm

          Is there some reason that commenters on gun websites cannot for the life of them learn the difference between “bare” arms and “bear” arms. I know that it looks like you might be referencing a grizzly when you type “bear” arms, but that’s the correct way to say it. “Bare” arms are what you have when you roll up your sleeves. To “bear” arms means to “carry” arms. Similar to “bearing” up under a weight. Get it.

          I must see this grammatical mistake a half-dozen times a day. Call me anal, but good heavens, men. Come on.

    • Ed Sunderland February 24, 2017, 9:43 am

      If there is an idiot in the room it is YOU Michael and your knowledge of the second amendment and its’ purpose. What this court did was unconstitutional in saying you can’t have weapons you might need to use against the very tyrannical court that made this onerous decision. Essentially, this court is making new law and not upholding the constitution.

      You clearly don’t like President Trump, we get that, but you don’t see the forest for the liberal democrat trees.

      The AR 15 is the Musket, Black Powder and Ball of the day the second amendment was written. What this unconstitutional piece of garbage legislation is make criminals of law abiding citizens who have done nothing but enjoy their God given right to self defense against thieves and murderers be they tyrannical government or those trying to steal your property.

      The constitution codifies God given rights not man made rights. Democrats want to control rights whether it is killing babies, destroying freedom of speech, gay marriage, LGBT-XYX bathroom issues——whatever you can scrape out of the toilet is what you support.

      Your second amendment has been assaulted but with liberal blinders on you can’t see the light.

    • Scott February 24, 2017, 11:20 am

      It is you , sir , who are the idiot . It is abundantly clear that you know absolutely NOTHING about guns and the law when you attack Trump as being the cause for imaginary future events .
      The ” modern sporting rifle ” is only used in about 1% – 2% of murders . Even that is a terrible thing , but they are a Very Small part of the problem .
      FACT * they are very rarely used in crime and are The Most Popular Sporting And Self Defense Rifle In America Today !
      BTW , I DO NOT OWN ONE ( not my thing ) . They are the Number One Target Rifle Today In National Match Competition ( Google Camp Perry , OH )

    • Big John February 24, 2017, 11:25 am

      Don’t feed the troll gentleman.

    • Eric February 24, 2017, 2:44 pm

      You’ll change your tune when finally come for your guns too.

    • john February 24, 2017, 3:13 pm

      Trolls still exsist huh? Typical liberal. Just angry words flying nothing of substance..

    • Shecky February 24, 2017, 3:13 pm

      Yours rights may not have been but here in KALIFORNISTAN they are getting down right scary. Black rifle ban, I have to re register (for later confiscation) the ones I own, and no magazine over 10 rounds…anything over that has to be turned in!! Beginning in 2018 we have to get a background check just to buy ammo….
      Idiots like you are the ones costing us rights a little at a time, soon it will include anything else they deem dangerous.

      I’m waiting on the day they try to confiscate….it will be one round at a time and the barrels hot!!

      • Robert Garrard February 24, 2017, 4:37 pm

        Need to have a sanctuary state for safekeeping of California’s — and any other states`— bannned magazines & guns. Would Nevada or Colorado or Arizona do? Even Oregon? Also, what about self-incrimination in acknowledging ownership of such? Especially if these are sent out of state for safekeeping? How bout for starters a gun range on the Nevada-California line that safekeeps & rents back lol such to rightful owner for 1 cent for range use there. More: The principles named in state slogan of Georgia: Wisdom, Justice & Moderation , need to be applied n DC, MD, CA, ALL states. That would help flesh out Radical Legislation on all sides of the political spectrum. The sooner more facts and thought – through analysis of the real dangerous users of firearms, eg criminal elements , are shared in non-threatening forums & media, the better. In other words, NRA-reduce preaching so much to the choir and do a better job of informing mid-America! B y the way, those out there that are haters & name-callers of anything other than your own doctrines. I am an NRA member and Independent voter. And God knows we, the United States, need voters and leaders that will thoughtfully handle legislation. Starting at the local & state levels, and onward & upward.

      • Jim February 25, 2017, 12:17 am

        Wow Shecky, that’s terrible. I feel so sorry for Californians. These laws are way out of hand. I think I would move the hell out of there.

  • tommy February 24, 2017, 1:20 pm

    When the 2nd Amendment was written, it meant and protected the military arms that defeated the world ‘s most advanced military of the time, the British army. The 2nd Amendment is about the sovereignty of the citizens over the government, and the necessary means to maintain a state of freedom and liberty. Without the means to revoke the consent of the governed, popular sovereignty does not exist. Military studies have shown semiautomatic rifles with their necessary high capacity magazines are effective in combat against forces armed with fully automatic weapons, as fielded by government armies. The real issue is that by denying we the people of the necessary magazines and rifles to effectively defend ourselves against a government that has been revoked of consent by the governed constitutes the destruction of our sovereignty, and as such would be an outright act of treason requiring a legitimate and constitutionally mandated defense against said tresspass by the we the Sovereign.

  • srsquidizen February 24, 2017, 12:16 pm

    When the Bill of Rights was written the states had no gun control laws. It was legal for a private citizen to own a cannon that with one well-placed shot could sink a wooden ship and drown everyone on it. The word “bear” is in the 2A to make it clear weapons CAN be carried for self-defense. It’s not to rule out all other categories of weapon. Scalia got it wrong IMO.

    Granted, today there are military weapons which cannot be operated safely or even stored safely except by teams of very highly trained personnel using rigorous protocols. I think most of us agree things like that should be kept away from the general public. A freakin’ semi-auto rifle that a Boy Scout can be trained to operate safely does not fall in that category.

    • charles February 24, 2017, 9:06 am

      A bull shi opinion written by a bull sh t court

      • Scott February 24, 2017, 11:23 am

        AMEN ! You Got It

    • Tommy Barrios February 24, 2017, 10:29 am

      AGAIN!
      WHO IS THIS COMMUNIST PROGRESSIVE LIBTARD MORON POSTING HERE???
      WTF!
      BAN THIS PANSY SNIVELING JERK ALSO

      • Scott February 24, 2017, 11:23 am

        BINGO !

      • Robert Garrard February 24, 2017, 4:43 pm

        No one needs ilk of your species pigeonholing, labeling, attacking & cussing anyone you dont agree with. You are not worth further comment.

    • RudeDog February 24, 2017, 11:40 am

      Are you oblivious to the bullet that just whizzed past your head … our heads …, had Clinton prevailed? We would have lost the country and would be taking up arms in a 21st Century Civil War. We would have needed the best available to us. How big are the arms the democidal government bureaucrats will be pointing at you … for your own good, of course? Do you even now dismiss their rhetoric, as they continue to attack Trump and us? What’s so bad about a Boy Scout, who’s doing his duty to God and Country, who been properly trained in firearm safety? I agree that things should be kept from godless pagans and those who’s faith denies the Gold Rule (moon worshipers). But who cares what you think if it’s just plan wrong … general public … pshaw?

      • srsquidizen February 24, 2017, 5:59 pm

        If you read my post I was DEFENDING the right of a Boy Scout (or anybody else who’s not a criminal) to have a semi-auto or anything else that’s not going to blow up the entire neighborhood if you press the wrong button. That’s what I meant by military weapons. Hope some of you guys shoot better than you read 😉

      • Muddog February 25, 2017, 11:27 pm

        RudeDog – I’m not really sure what your God has to do with any of this. The laws are secular in nature and don’t refer to your God or any god. And why should anything be kept from “godless pagans”? Your statement makes very little sense, especially in how faith would deny the “Golden Rule” to moon worshipers. I’m not even sure what a moon worshipper is unless you are referring to Wiccan’s. And the Golden Rule states, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Why would anyone be exempt from that statement, unless you attest that only Christians are entitled to participate in the Golden Rule, which is idiotic at best.
        I’m sorry to say that you are right, because your whole God this and God that is clearly disconcerting, but the 2nd Amendment DOES confirm that we DO have the right to bear arms, any arms. There was no limitation specified. And not only for militia reasons as others have stated but to protect our sovereignty and the powers we have placed in trust with our government. I live in Maryland and I am NOT AT ALL HAPPY with this needless limitation imposed on my rights.
        As to you RudeDog, you may want to read through your bible some. You seem to be ready to go out and kill your fellow Americans (whether you agree with them or not) because you feel your rights are being infringed….Thou Shall Not Kill. Me thinks you are a very poor Christian indeed.

        Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
        9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
        10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

  • Jim February 24, 2017, 12:07 pm

    These ARE NOT “Assault Weapons”. If you were to try and use one of these firearms in military combat you would be committing suicide! Yes they can and will be used in self-defense as well as used by LE personnel! Also some use them in hunting. To me, this is a weapon that I have in my home for self-defense purposes only.

    • tom March 12, 2017, 1:41 pm

      I agree that civilian AR-15 and AK rifles are not assault rifles (because they lack the burst/auto fire capability). However, you are incorrect that using ‘one of these firearms in military combat you would be committing suicide’. Having served in the USMC Infantry, my experience is that riflemen are expected to engage the enemy with well aimed semi-auto fire. Both in USMC and Army Infantry units, designated personnel use full-auto machine guns like the M249 SAW (squad automatic weapon); additionally, within Infantry battalions members of Weapons Company or Weapons Platoon use machine guns like the 240Gulf (7.62/308) and the M2 (50BMG) and are attached to other units within the battalion at the company, platoon, or squad level.

      As part of the changes adopted by the military with the adoption of the M16-A2, the full-auto sear of the M16-A1 was changed to the 3-round-burst of the M16-A2 and most later variants. Even so, during training at Paris Island, Camp Geiger, and Camp Lejeune and while serving with 1st Bn/2nd Marines, we were expected to only use 3-round-burst for specific purposes (room/building clearing, position being overrun, etc…) and that semi-auto was preferred for general combat purposes.

      Bearing this is mind, if NFA1934 were to be overruled by SCOTUS, I would feel no desire to obtain A1 or A2 sears for my semi-automatic rifles. I am fine using an AR-platform rifle in semi-automatic and would not have a problem using it in this configuration even if N. Korea were to try and invade the USA and it was time to saddle-up, lol.

  • marsh keith February 24, 2017, 12:06 pm

    how do you remove judges who judge laws on the basis of “feelings” rather than law? it is the “opinion” of this court….and they are wrong, some might say criminal and treasonous not upholding the laws of the land. take a flame thrower to the place and burn the whole damn thing down.

  • Tommy Barrios February 24, 2017, 10:31 am

    Another Fascist Fallacious Communist Progressive Libtard Inculcated Court ILLEGALLY making law from bench!
    IMPEACH THESE BUMS NOW!

  • Sam February 24, 2017, 10:26 am

    This ban will do so much to keep criminals from breaking the law, because we all know that there is awesome respect in the criminal community for what the court mandates as law. All this does is keep these banned items out of the hands of law abiding citizens who respect the law. ” when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”
    IDIOTS……

    • Scott February 24, 2017, 3:36 pm

      Well Said And SPOT ON !

    • Dennis M February 25, 2017, 2:45 pm

      I have always said (about confiscation) “when the last weapon, be it knife, pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc, is taken from the last criminal on earth, then I would consider giving up mine. (Probably won’t though. )

  • mark February 24, 2017, 10:24 am

    like moonshine during prohibition, banning something will only let criminals have them. banning weapons is misguided and ultimately flawed. if anything should be banned, its parenting incompetence. we hold minimum wage bartenders liable for serving drunk customers who commit crimes. I kind of think we should hold parents liable and once their precious children reach legal age, they should go to jail for breaking the law. In the interim, civil suits should be brought against the inept parents. There is a responsibility included with procreation. Do it ok and you kids get reasonable jobs at a supermarket. do it great and they go to college. screw it up and you all get to go to jail. No questions on how hard it was for you and how you had to work and couldn’t take care of them….. that was your one and only job. ALL ON YOU

    • Gregory Romeu February 24, 2017, 10:24 am

      Not that I disagree with you but I could shoot holes in your analogy of parenting because of the way that the feminist have taken over the family courts and have worked to destroy the families, especially the father-child relationships, separating the father from the children in most cases thereby screwing up the children.

      Most of the last three generations have grown up in single-parent households led by the mother and we see how that is working out. Yet government over reach from the family court system by not applying Equal justice under law, (Hmmm? Equal justice? Women’s equality? Are you starting to see the big misguided and sordid picture?) is aiding and abetting the destruction of our society and our children.
      Keep in mind when we get into our eighties and nineties if we live that long these parentless children that are misguided will be the ones in control.
      As far as keeping and bearing arms, a United States citizen has absolute right to own anything that the military owns provided they have the proper permits and pay the proper fees starting with the Second Amendment. People often forget that it’s our tax dollars that paid for the building, use and the storing of all the weapons that are military has, so whether you choose to believe it or not all of that belongs to, We the People and not some faceless federal government agent.

      I could bore you to go do a Google search to find out how many people in the country on a Abrams tank or other artillery pieces, but you don’t want to be bothered with all that so what the heck just go to Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot and take a look at what the kids are playing with out in the backyard?

  • Rog February 24, 2017, 10:08 am

    Let’s try to get some things into the thick heads of our fellow Americans. Man created government and government created this corporate thing they call the UNITED STATES. The UNITED STATES is passing corporate policy for use inside the District of Columbia. Maryland is a corporate franchise of the UNITED STATES. All government and corporations are creations of Man. The created can not be superior to its creator. Period.

    • Gregory Romeu February 24, 2017, 10:26 am

      Unless you dress in drag, wearing a floor length black dress and bang a little hammer on a desk all day long.

  • Bill February 24, 2017, 9:48 am

    “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.”

    The 4th Circuit is so wrong in their ruling. The 2nd Amendment speaks to a militia, and what is a militia but “a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.” Now, why would a militia not have military type weapons to use in an emergency?

    • Gregory Romeu February 24, 2017, 10:28 am

      The same reason the people in the 4th circuit don’t have any judges on the bench that know what they’re doing! Complacency of the population to control their government!

    • marsh keith February 24, 2017, 12:11 pm

      wonder how they would do if a couple of them went hunting with scalia or cheney? do you think the guards that guard the judges are restricted to single shot rifles with 10 mags? how come they get better protection than my 3 year old? and when the government finally sends in its own troops to smash and uprising, how am i supposed to kill em all?

      • Robert Garrard February 24, 2017, 4:46 pm

        wouldnt want to hunt with either…

  • Chuck Roast February 24, 2017, 9:44 am

    Now is the time for getting in the Democrat anti-gun nut lawmakers faces, and DEMANDING a pro-rights Supreme Court Justice be confirmed immediately. It is also time to DEMAND of our so-called conservative lawmakers, that they read the entire federal constitution until such time as they get to the part where it is plainly stated that federal judges and supreme court justices are not \”appointed for life\”, but rather, may serve a lifetime appointment, with the condition that they act \”…in good conduct\”. Otherwise, they may be impeached from their \”lifetime appointment\”. Many federal judges need impeachment, as do a couple of current Supreme Court Justices on the United States bench, as well as most of the 9th District.
    Making up law, and pulling \”rights\” out of their asses, is not acting in good conduct.

  • William Fossett February 24, 2017, 9:44 am

    I would like to know what the penalties are if someone breaks this very stupid law.
    Our jails don’t have enough room to house the real criminals in our country, let alone incarcerating honest citizens.
    Just ask any drug dealer or murder in Baltimore if he will pay any attention to this very bad law.

  • Chuck Roast February 24, 2017, 9:43 am

    Now is the time for getting in the Democrat anti-gun nut lawmakers faces, and DEMANDING a pro-rights Supreme Court Justice be confirmed immediately. It is also time to DEMAND of our so-called conservative lawmakers, that they read the entire federal constitution until such time as they get to the part where it is plainly stated that federal judges and supreme court justices are not “appointed for life”, but rather, may serve a lifetime appointment, with the condition that they act “…in good conduct”. Otherwise, they may be impeached from their “lifetime appointment”. Many federal judges need impeachment, as do a couple of current Supreme Court Justices on the United States bench, as well as most of the 9th District.
    Making up law, and pulling “rights” out of their asses, is not acting in good conduct.

  • Ron Winship February 24, 2017, 9:18 am

    Yep,…time for the NRA to step up and challenge this……or they can call the White House and complain,.

  • William Burnett February 24, 2017, 9:08 am

    IMO the second amendment was designed to guarantee that the states and citizens thereof shall possess the ability to stop anyone who would attempt to overthrow their Constitutional Republic form of government be they either foreign or domestic. This means IMO the citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms comparable to those of the military, this is the precise purpose of the second amendment and isn’t designed to protect the citizen’s rights to keep and bear hunting weapons though it does protect this God given right to survive.

  • Tiger Mountain Man February 24, 2017, 9:06 am

    Make no mistake about it. The anti-2nd Amendment people (backed by the court’s nefarious rulings) are coming for your guns!
    “Si vis pacem, para bellum.”
    Wake Up America!

  • Mort Leith February 24, 2017, 7:56 am

    These dipshiit liberals don’t even KNOW what an Assault weapon is…
    And Assault weapon refers to a full automatic machine gun that fires continuously with one pull of the trigger.
    These AR-15s do NOT do that !

    And they’re also probably ignorant enough to think that the AR stands for Assault Rifle,, when in fact it stands for Armalite,, the manufacturer…

    • KimberproSS February 24, 2017, 9:39 am

      Assault Rifle (Armalite Rifle) was a moniker defined by Slick Willy Clinton during his administration for the AR15 as a political ploy for gun control. The progressive liberals jumped right on that bandwagon, along with the MSM. I don’t believe there was a definition of an assault rifle until then. Since, clearer minds have tried to define it as a weapon used by troopers in war with full auto or burst capability.

    • PF Flyer February 24, 2017, 1:08 pm

      EXACTLY. This is why I stopped contributing to NRA. They spend money in all the wrong places. Especially the administration of NRA. IF NRA and others could educate the “powers that be” there would be less confusion on this issue and perhaps a little common sense.

      • Gregory Romeu February 24, 2017, 2:49 pm

        The NRA is in business to protect your 2nd Amendment rights. It is WE, the people’s job to maintain the government and its officials.

        • PF Flyer February 24, 2017, 6:14 pm

          Have you seen the latest report of the salaries of the various administrators at NRA? Your money is going to their salaries, NOT protecting our already given rights.

          • Derek Hannan February 25, 2017, 1:04 pm

            The NRA has no dog in this hunt. If gun owners get everything they want then NRA staff have no jobs. It’s to their advantage to keep the controversy running.

  • Tim Pearce February 24, 2017, 7:38 am

    Oh Maryland.. Last I heard your low life was the majority.. Your headmen want to deny you the right and the low life don’t worry about laws.. Time to eject your present leadership.

  • Tim February 24, 2017, 6:24 am

    Hand to hand combat training makes my hands, weapons of war. What will I do when Assault Hands are banned? Register them,…or surrender them?

  • Rise-up-citizens February 24, 2017, 5:25 am

    Complete B.S – Rise up my fellow citizens, enough is enough…

  • Jesse I Jackson February 24, 2017, 3:53 am

    As a resident of Maryland the Court, the State, County and City Governments can stick it where the Sun Don’t Shine. I own several “Black Rifles” and AKs and High Capacity Magazines that I have owned for years and I will never register or surrender any of them to the Commie Government. They can try and take theim rom me Barrel first,

  • Christian February 23, 2017, 11:26 am

    Upholding the Assault Weapons Ban by the 4th Circuit is extremely against the constitution and I tell you my opinion why.

    As the video states, those so-called assault weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment because they are weapons of war. That is one of the statements from the 4th Circuit. But this is clearly wrong. Why I say so? Because Justice Ginsburg made a good statement about it:

    https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/justice-ginsburg-laments-decision-affirming-2a-individual-right/

    Now, please do not freak out on me because I mention her. But in her statement, she said the following:

    “The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia … Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias,” she said. “The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.”

    Now, those state militias had what kind of certain weapons in their home, in case an enemy invasion force, probably England, would suddenly come up the east coast? Yes, weapons of war, these rifles from that time, so therefore even weapons of war are protected by the 2nd amendment, even according to the statement of Justice Ginsburg, who even denies that the 2nd amendment is an individual right in her opinion. So therefore, weapons of war and therefore also assault rifles are protected by the 2nd amendment. The 4th Circuit of Maryland is lying to the people and made a horribly wrong decision.

    And another thing: What are weapons of war exactly? Pistols are also weapons of war, combat knifes are weapons of war, hell, every weapon is also a weapon of war. And like it or not but they are protected by the 2nd amendment. Blaming the so-called assault rifles only as being weapons of war is just dumb. Any weapon is a weapon of war, even if they have not been produced for this, for example hunting rifles. You can use any kind of gun in war and every soldier has normally a sidearm, which is usually a pistol. So, the 4th Circuit was doing another mistake here as well. If they would have to follow their words, they would have to ban any kind of gun and maybe that is their plan, I don’t know. But no matter how you see it, this decision is completely anti-constitutional.

    There shall be no bans on certain gun types, magazine capacity or anything else. This is what the 2nd amendment is all about and any Circuit deciding different is a shame for the United States because they are going against their own constitution.

    • Rob February 24, 2017, 2:41 am

      I completely agree with you. Look at this quote from the Judge Robert King who presided over this shredding of the Constitution.

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

      I am assuming that Judge King is a law school grad, and yet, I am certain that he can’t explain to me where he finds evidence that these weapons are excluded from the Second Amendment’s coverage when it clearly states, “…shall not be infringed.”

      • Christian February 24, 2017, 1:18 pm

        I just tell you the obvious, which you surely already know: There is no evidence in the 2nd amendment. There are no bans on any certain weapon types in the 2nd amendment. That is why I always would like to see a pure 2nd amendment with no limits or regulations because that is what “shall not be infringed” is all about, in my point of view. Even judges have to bow down to this fact but the problem is that they do it like the Pharisee during the time of Jesus. They just interpret any word of the constitution how they want to hear it and they won’t just follow the words as they have been written down. I am sure that if the fathers of America wanted the constitution to be interpreted, they would have just written it down different, for example “shall not be infringed, but….” But this didn’t happen. Therefore, the problem is not the judges alone, but the fact that the American people don’t do something against these decisions that are completely against the constitution.

    • Joseph Ellison February 24, 2017, 7:54 am

      I agree with you! The second amendment also states that the governement will have a milita stronger than the people. I say we need to file and insurection against our judges and congress for misinterperting the law and taking away our consitiution. We to help President Trump fire and remove these communist that are making our laws void. We cannot allow these people that represent our govenement to gain power over us. We need to stand with the ACLJ and do this civilly. Please start petitions to protect our nation we all need to unite. Please don’t do this criminally!!!

      • Christian February 24, 2017, 1:22 pm

        I also fully agree with you but I do not believe petitions alone would change anything. What we also need are huge masses of people marching the streets and demonstrate for their constitutional rights and against the judges that are fully going against the constitution and against what the constitution says. And if this march of thousands of people would end in front of the White House, I do believe that its impact would be great. The problem is, of course, to reach the masses and make them able to march in such a demonstration united. They might laugh about 100 people or even about 1.000 people. But if 10.000 or more are already marching on the streets, they start to fear the people, the ones the constitution was written for and the ones that deserve politicians and judges that defend them and the constitution at all cost.

    • Sam February 24, 2017, 8:34 am

      No, every soldier does not carry a side arm. Otherwise, I agree with your statements. If you believe Jason Bourne, even a rolled up magazine can be a weapon of war. Unfortunately, the courts have become adept at creating definitions to support their own agenda.

      • Christian February 24, 2017, 1:24 pm

        I am sorry, maybe I shouldn’t have used the word “every” in this case but I never was in the military, so I don’t know it better unfortunately. Anyway, you are absolutely right about the judges. I think this is a very dangerous situation, allowing a few people at the top to interpret the constitution the way they want it to hear. This is not acceptable and it has to be stopped.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend