Federal judge upholds Maryland Assault Weapons Ban, ruling they ‘fall outside Second Amendment’

judge

U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake. (Photo: GunsSaveLives.net)

In what was a difficult blow for gun owners in the Free State, on Tuesday, a federal judge upheld Maryland’s new gun-control law signed into law by Gov. Martin O’Malley in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

In her 47-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake said that the law, which expanded the ban on so-called assault weapons, was constitutional because modern sporting rifles “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.”

Judge Blake also rejected the plaintiffs claim that these rifles are “commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense,” suggesting that the numbers presented just don’t add up.

“First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public,” wrote Blake. “Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.”

The Clinton-appointee argued that statistics indicate that so-called assault weapons are “disproportionately represented in mass shootings,” and are not better suited for self-defense.

“As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose,” wrote Blake.

She concluded by stating that “assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.”

The ruling was a victory for the O’Malley administration, which heavily backed the law.

“We are pleased with today’s federal court decision upholding the constitutionality of Maryland’s Firearms Safety Act of 2013,” said Maryland Attorney Doug Gansler in a statement released on Tuesday.

“The banning of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines is a vital tool in the effort to help protect Marylanders from the most destructive weapons available for use by criminals,” continued Gansler, who defended the law in court.

Gansler added, “This ruling reflects our view that the law in no way infringes the Second Amendment rights of Marylanders. It is consistent with the advice we gave state lawmakers who carefully drafted legislation to assist law enforcement in its efforts to curtail gun violence.”

Meanwhile, Maryland Shall Issue, one of the main plaintiffs in the case, known as Kolbe et al v. O’Malley et al,  along with the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the fight is not over.

“We are disappointed to report that the District Court of Maryland has found the AWB (assault weapons ban) provision of SB 281 constitutional,” said the group on Facebook. “We will, of course, be appealing the decision.”

[H/T GunsSaveLives.net]

{ 59 comments… add one }
  • John Brunner January 20, 2017, 11:10 am

    What is the definition of an “Assault Rifle”? [“AR” = Armalite Rifle]

  • APD January 13, 2017, 7:44 am

    There is a bunch of spurious argument that the judge is making here. It has nothing to do with actual law and sounds more like she is playing to the media. The 1% claim she makes is irrelevant as is the argument that the weapons are unusual. Can you imagine a civil rights case where the plaintiff is told “the voting rights you are asking for are not usual for where you live, so you can’t have them” ?

  • gary December 12, 2016, 5:13 pm

    first off if I wanted an assault weapon, I want full auto, not semi auto like an AR-15, secondly, I am not going thru all the red tape involved with that purchase. An AR-15 is not an Assualt weapon it is a look alike weapon. Are these people idiots???????? An M-16 is an Assualt weapon.

  • Luis Bonilla May 20, 2016, 12:58 pm

    All she did was , followed her personal opinion instead of a logical reason , that no matter if the rifle is of assault type as they labeled them . they are rifles that hold more ammunition . A decision made by this judge is not rational based on what I read
    she just came up with a reason not to repeal the ban . She was not impartial .

  • Robinsmark May 18, 2016, 4:46 pm

    If it is true that these guns fall outside the 2nd Amendment protection, then it must also be true that the Internet, TV, Radio, Cell Phones ALSO fall outside the protection of the first amendment since they were not around at the time of the drafting of the US Constitution. One could counter argue that cell phones have been used to facilitate crimes. The internet has caused irreparable harm to some people as well. Her use of the words “modern sporting rifles” is an overly broad term. Does that mean someone who has a muzzle loader from decades ago would be a violator of the law? After all its not a “modern SPORTING RIFLE” Sounds more like a reason for mass gun bans.

  • bob December 18, 2015, 2:17 pm

    The Second Amendment is slowly being eroding by such laws enacted by the individual States. Evidently, it’s easier to sway the governors than the U.S. Representatives and Senators. The First Amendment will be the next to go. When these two fall, the United States of America will cease to exist, as we know it.
    I must agree with a previous commented, who said, Who’s to blame… ourselves.
    If I read the judge’s remarks correctly, she commented that the semi-automatic military-style “assault weapons” could, possibly, be more effective than the government issues surprises me. Maybe, she should make a pitch to the DoD to ban all the full automatic weapons from the inventory and issue the civilian versions.
    This women, although she is a Judge, has no clue.
    In my opinion, another case of political influence and the perks that comes with it. Judges are, just, academically educated people and, certainly, subject to temptations as everyone else is.
    Rant, over. Opinion, stated. Have a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

  • jms380 August 24, 2015, 10:31 pm

    I am so tired of these activist judges, ruling not on the basis of law but only on their personsl opinions on the matter. The SCOTUS in the Heller ruling instructed that the the citizens are allowed to posses the weapons equvilnent to a soldier. It fully informed the judges to stop. Making rulings that are opposite of the supreme courts intruction. And anyone with any common sense knows defense rifles are rately used in crime. Justice Sotomayor is by far the worst. In a recent property case she ruled that unless the givernment took all your property you did not suffer a loss. Her logic we stole your car, but left you key. Your good.

    • Redkiter1 May 6, 2016, 5:09 pm

      ALLLLL of these politicians and Anti-gun groups Cash flows, should be reviewed with anomalies sourced TO who DID THE BRIBING.. Bribing or receiving bribes that would affect a legal decision is a FEONIOS ACT. AND STILL BELIEVING IN MIRACLES where, Jubilated UNLIKE Hillary for their TRATORIST ACTIONS.

  • DaveGinOly November 17, 2014, 3:24 pm

    This is what happens when gun advocates have an almost total reliance upon the 2nd Amendment for the defense of the right to arms. The right to arms can be defended with arguments from the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments (at least) as well as by direct appeal to very sound constitutional principles that have been espoused by SCOTUS and other federal courts. (The Ninth Amendment itself admits of claims to rights not enumerated in the BOR.) Even the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is generally ignored as a guiding principle for the interpretation of what is written there. (The Preamble states that the existence of the BOR is meant to demonstrate conclusively that the government has no authority to infringe upon any of them for any purpose.) Statistics are likewise irrelevant and should generally be avoided (lest, as in this case, they be twisted into counter arguments). Assuming for the moment that most terrorists are Muslims, does this create an argument for abridging the First Amendment? It would probably be true that crime could be reduced, at least in certain neighborhoods, by allowing police to conduct house-to-house searches without warrants, does this create an argument for abridging the Fourth Amendment? Do these examples create arguments to permit such action? Absolutely not – statistics (and what the law may accomplish for public safety) are entirely irrelevant. Principle is ALWAYS relevant.

    Aside from my criticism above, the judge’s decision is obviously nonsense. If “assault weapons” are “offensive” in nature, the implication is that weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are “defensive” in nature. First, where does she find this distinction in the amendment? Second, what weapon cannot be used offensively (even a Taser)? If the amendment protects only defensive arms, and all arms are potentially offensive, then the amendment protects no arms at all – a sound conclusion, by her argument, which renders the 2nd Amendment perfectly useless. (Principle: SCOTUS says – I’m paraphrasing rather closely – that no constitutional provision can be presumed to be without effect. Yet her decision, if carried to its logical conclusion, does exactly what SCOTUS says cannot be done.)

  • Micael Murphy August 21, 2014, 6:23 pm

    The America I grew up in is not alive any more ! We can’t force any Business to hire laid of NASA and Boeing Experienced Intelligent Ingenuity Older Americans with Priceless Knowledge and experience on a Slave wage In the DemonRAt Donkey dick Delusional Economy of a False One from the Glass Stegal act Sun setter warned by Ross Perot of NAFTA Draft Dodger Bill Slick Willy Clinton do we ?

  • Garrry Edwards August 18, 2014, 11:24 pm

    This is what our Federal Judges are coming to. They to have laid their hand on the bible an swore to uphold the Constitution. She had better go back an check there is no mention of assault weapons. Wonder where these half backed Judges who are on crack come up with such BS. The Supreme court has already ruled on the law. Another candidate to be impeached.

  • Edward August 18, 2014, 9:15 pm

    My guess is that Judge Blake would approve of flintlocks for home and self defense as more in keeping with the intent of the Second Amendment?

    • Edward August 18, 2014, 9:19 pm

      Moderation??? The avoidance of extreme or excessive opinion? I thought my comments to be quite tame; moderate in fact, compared to some that have been posted.

  • MJB August 18, 2014, 6:15 pm

    What did you expect from a left wing socialist democrat state like Maryland?

  • Keith August 18, 2014, 5:36 pm

    I never saw anything that mentioned “dangerous and unusual” in the 2nd amendment. I do see “Shall not be infringed”. In legalese and law codes normally “Shall not” is a requirement that the government does not abridge it in any manner. It means a requirement! How can they justify it, it means if I can carry it (bear it) (still not sure if bear would include a vehicle or boat as such a cannon on a private ship at one time) then I should be able to have it without any government interference unless ones lost their civil rights through a court action. Obviously by any rational and “logical” thought process the 2nd amendment has been infringed upon mercilessly already. Of course lawyers and judges seemingly specialize in irrational and illogical thought processes.

    • DaveGinOly November 17, 2014, 6:12 pm

      At the time of its writing, the term “arms” as used in the 2nd Amendment referred to personal weapons. Today we’d make a distinction between “personal” and “crew-served” weapons. Back then, “crew-served” weapons were known as “ordnance.” However, the language does not necessarily restrict ownership of “arms” to those that can be “borne.” It enumerates two distinct rights – one to “arms” and the other to the right to “bear” them. This does not imply that in order to have a right to an “arm” that is must be capable of being “borne,” it merely means that if a weapon CAN BE borne, you have a right to do so. To construe the language to be restrictive, and to infer government authority to make legislation enforcing the restriction, ignores the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and violates the principles (restrictions on the courts’ interpretation of the Bill of Rights) enumerated in the 9th Amendment.

      • Den May 1, 2017, 5:05 pm

        All I got out of what you wrote was : If I can carry a Howitzer on my back, then I can use it. Perhaps the three man crew of an MG-42 was a deadly version of teamwork, one to change barrels, one to feed ammunition, and one to fire the weapon, thus ‘crew borne’. Well, it isn’t easy but an individual could carry this weapon but it’s around 3.5 ft long and weighs about 75 lbs, but I carried one just to see. It wasn’t fun. But since I could transport it alone, get somebody else to carry the 60 lbs of 8mm rounds, I believe that would give me the ability to fire approximately 800 rounds per minute. Is that the law you want?

        • Michael Harper November 25, 2017, 10:27 pm

          Your last comment says it all. Doesn’t matter what I want. Matter what the law says. Federalist papers and personal letters tell the intend. Firstly, these are universal RIGHTS, not privileges granted by government. Secondly, sporting purposes were not discussed, protecting the country and overthrowing a tyrannical government were. Those are the purpose of the 2A. I am a citizen and will never be a subject. Learn the difference.

  • george carvalho August 18, 2014, 4:08 pm

    Although I’m not a fan of or believe the argument that assault rifles are for defensive purposes as some would state here or on any other website,blog or anywhere for that matter, I do believe we should be able to own one if we so choose.I do own a gun and plan on buying more, I just don’t see the need for myself to buy an AR-15, but that’s me, I think the issue should be who is buying those guns? do they have a mental handicap or issues of that nature, criminal record,things like that. There are too many knee jerk reactions to gun violence just to say they did something. I don’t know just my opinion.

    • Bill August 19, 2014, 12:33 pm

      What happens when a natural disaster strikes and all the Government dependant freeloaders want food, and the stores are cleaned out? They will go house to house taking what they want. How do you defend against a mob that would take all your food, and survival stocks? Don’t say it won’t happen. It is only a matter of time. Long guns of any kind are used in less than 3% of all gun crimes, and that figure includes shotguns and all rifles, single shot, bolt action, lever and pump. The judges claim that “assault style” weapons are disproportionately used in crimes is simply a lie! FBI statistics show this! America is too dependant on handouts now, and these lazy freeloaders will take what they need should it not be readily given to them. And our Government is broke…the writing is on the wall! They aren’t doing anything to keep mentally ill from buying guns, and it has been against the law for decades. It takes coordination mental health professionals to get the info into the hands of law enforcement. Doctors should go to jail for not submitting evidence of this but nothing is done. The laws that have been on the books for years are sufficient, if enforced, but they aren’t because the real agenda is to disarm America before theyare forced to stop printing money to support the freeloaders who will riot enmass.

  • D. Hicks August 18, 2014, 3:49 pm

    Anti American Anti firearms Anti Freedom.What comes next?

  • Tom G August 18, 2014, 2:07 pm

    One look at this “judge” and you could tell the outcome before the case went to court.

    • Elvis Lives August 18, 2014, 7:54 pm

      My what big eyebrows you have Little Red Riding Hood.

  • Al August 18, 2014, 1:45 pm

    Just another reason to pack up and leave MD.

    Starliner

    • Dan August 19, 2014, 9:43 am

      That is exactly what Beretta has done; gone to Tennessee.

  • bob August 18, 2014, 11:41 am

    I grow up in Germany and firearms are illegal since the war. But check for yourself on the net how many shootings there are. Lawful people are not breaking the law, criminals are. And it’s the guy behind the weapon who is using the trigger, not the gun itself, right?

  • oldfuzz695 August 18, 2014, 11:29 am

    WHAT A COUNTRY!

  • listen to this August 18, 2014, 11:14 am

    As stated by the founding fathers the 10 amendments where to give power to the people. The second states the right to keep and bear arms to protect against tranny in government. So how is banning so called assault weapons not taking power away from the people and therefor not infringing on the second amendment?? While our police forces around the country are being armed with true assault weapons? Obama said assault weapons belong in the hands of soilders, so who are the police at war with??

    • Dan May 1, 2017, 5:58 pm

      Ummmm. I think you just committed a major hate crime. Who knew that we needed to protect the government from ‘trannys’ ?

      Sir, the second amendment does not state anything close to what you wrote. Do the words ‘ well regulated militia’ sound familiar? I’m not a cheerleader for the police, but when they are outgunned as they were in CA last year, they had to wait for a freaking cousin of R2D2 to trundle across the parking garage and eliminate a sniper. Great solution!

      Now. Download a copy of the constitution from the App Store. It’s free. There is not a single amendment that can stand on its own. Way too many gun owners read the section called 2a, and then shut off their rational brains. You Sir, are the exception. You put words in that aren’t there! Tranny? Seriously? This type of writing by people like you absolutely give gun haters the right to refer to us as ‘gun nuts’ . Just referring to 2a, there are over 25,000 different laws that states have legally attached to the amendment. This is the same as looking at the cover of a wonderful book called the Holy Bible and saying that you have read and understood all of it. Except tranny isn’t in there, I don’t think. No offense to their community intended.

      So, my only point is this. If we plan on making any progress, stop quoting 2a. When written, it did stand alone. It meant something. We didn’t make it out of the 1700’s before a state passed a referendum about firearms in a government session, that was open to the public. I thought that made sense. If there’s going to be any gun play, we need to take it outside. Ask Burr or Hamilton…..lol

      I’m glad for SOME of the laws that were added. If your neighbor had a history of violence and perhaps a felony or two, I would prefer he wasn’t armed. Would you have an issue with that law? There’s 20,000 more attached to 2a, so if you’re going to rest your argument on the amendment, ask your listener to get comfortable because now you gotta read the whole thing. Our constitution is in no way to be interpreted as your ‘God given right’. He didn’t bestow this. Stop saying it because it’s not true! Jefferson had the foresight to say that there must be a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state. Tough to misunderstand that. If we are going to get any of our perceived rights to go back one inch closer to the original 2a, you must know the laws better than your adversaries.

      Remember, App Store, download, free…..and umm, read the thing. Good luck, right now you are hurting not helping.

      • Michael Harper November 25, 2017, 10:50 pm

        Really, all that because of a typ? Tranny when he clearly meant tyranny? Well ordered militia. In the language of the time the “militia” was the entirety of able bodied men. In the language of the day, well ordered, read well trained of sufficiently able to use. As for separation of church and state, you actually made me laugh. Pleas read more before you embarrass yourself further. That misnomer meant that there could be no law to establish a government forced (only) religion you were forced to belong to, which was government or tax payer supported. Fact is, the Founders letters predicted that the union would only stand as long as it was run by honest Christian men.

  • DGunGuy August 18, 2014, 10:48 am

    Everyone posting here—-remember to not just speak on a post! Become a NRA LIFE MEMBER! ! Get involved locally and make your voice louder! Participate when you get a survey or forward your opinions to your legislation! If we complain and don’t take these simple steps we’re no better! Freedom isn’t free and we have to fight together, we have a huge election in November!

    Oh and 1 more thing, go VOTE in that election and get your friends and family to do that same thing, United we win, divided or not representing we fall!

    D in ME

  • Mike Denver August 18, 2014, 10:38 am

    There is a petition on change.org to disarm the police, if thats how they want to play lets beat them at their own game. Go sign today change .org

  • jerold kasha August 18, 2014, 10:35 am

    the judge needs to read the 2nd on more time preferably in english !

  • DanF. August 18, 2014, 9:29 am

    I have yet to understand why the anti-2As think that a ban on “assault weapons” would have any effect on any crime. Banning a gun because it is “military-style” is banning a tool because of its looks and not its function.
    The People’s State of California bans quite a few M-16/M-4 lookalikes–but not all of them. A Ruger Mini-14 is perfectly legal, unless one changes out the stock, in which case it magically becomes an evil and banned assault rifle–without an iota of change in the action, mind you.
    I don’t agree with, but can at least understand, the quasi-logic of actions against higher capacity magazines. But to ban a class of firearm because it looks mean (or really neat, depending) is not only stupid and utterly ineffective in obtaining any result, but demonstrates the cynical pandering that too many politicians are willing to practice in order to stay in power. And the sheeple Baa on in their support.

  • Dan August 18, 2014, 7:55 am

    Isn’t it ironic that the Free State has such a limit on freedom so as to limit the freedom to self protection. Maryland’s draconian CCW laws reflect the liberal agenda of a Democratically controlled state. As a conservative Democrat I feel ostracized and unsafe in a State that makes it a crime to self protection. Its time to leave the sheep behind and find another State that is less restrictive and more conducive to personal freedom.

  • Joe McHugh August 18, 2014, 7:34 am

    At least one group of gun owners can take solace in Judge Catherine C. Blake’s ruling on “assault weapons”. This particular group will be celebrating the good judge’s decision that certain arms are not in common use and therefore not fit for possession by law-abiding people.
    That group of “citizens” just happens to be the same group that benefits by ALL gun laws except the four basic ones that applies to every citizen. These four laws are:
    1) It is illegal to threaten a law-abiding person with a firearm.
    2) It is illegal to injure a law-abiding person with a firearm.
    3) It is illegal to kill a law-abiding person with a firearm.
    4) It is illegal to sell a firearm to a violent criminal or adjudged dangerous psychotic.
    Oh, and the favored group that Judge Blake and other wrong headed judges continue to empower? That would be the criminal that walk among us, of course. Laws do not deter such people and judges like Catherine C. Blake aid the criminals by disarming the law-abiding in the face of the very real threat of the criminals that are always able to get any type of firearm they desire with the money they rob from their victims. The black market in firearms is always able to provide such weapons at excessive prices that criminals can well afford.
    So Judge Blake can feel like she accomplished something in the war between the criminals and the law-abiding, she made the criminal’s trade safer to ply. The result of Judge Blake’s ruling? She just described 8.2 million citizens as being criminals by keeping and bearing such “assault weapons”. Congratulations Catherine, you are now firmly established as being a wrongheaded judge. I don’t mean to disrespect the good judge, I only describe her as being on the wrong side of the Constitution.
    That’s not just my opinion, It’s also the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia that he stated in the majority opinion of District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, June 26 2008. “….the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
    Call me crazy, but that tells me that the so called “assault weapons” constitute bearable arms because one can actually pick them up and fire them as designed.
    Poor Catherine, the appeals judges will obviously be compelled to take her to the wood shed and spank her behind, as she well deserves for her unconstitutional ruling. She won’t be able to sit at her bench for a couple of days due to a sore behind but she will recover that ability. What she will not be able to recover is any sort of respect as a judge.

    • BigC August 18, 2014, 8:26 am

      “The Clinton appointee”…………………say no more!!!!!!

  • Lee333 August 18, 2014, 7:13 am

    If they are outside of the 2nd for civilians, then they must be outside of the 2nd for civilian agencies too, such as the civilian law enforcement agencies. After all, the Constitution applies to ALL in this country, even illegal aliens, so our law enforcement offers are not above that. So I guess my real question is, “Hey judge, when are the police going to turn in their AR15’s???” Since they are not US military they need to comply to the civilian laws too.

    • Mike Denver August 18, 2014, 10:33 am

      Exactly! Armored personnel carriers, grenade launchers, large caliber machine guns have no place in local law enforcement arsenals. Judge, If you’re going to protect the people of Maryland you should start by protecting the citizens and go after with the people with the actual machine guns and military equipment.

    • Mike Denver August 18, 2014, 10:36 am

      Exactly! Armored personnel carriers, grenade launchers, large caliber machine guns have no place in local law enforcement arsenals. Judge, If you’re going to protect the people of Maryland you should start by protecting the citizens and go after with the people with the actual machine guns and military equipment, the police.

    • DaveGinOly November 17, 2014, 4:05 pm

      She’s admitted that our civilian police use “offensive weapons” against the citizens (including suspects – no person is guilty until proven so by a jury) they’re supposed to protect.

  • Ric August 18, 2014, 7:02 am

    Who coined the term ” Assault Rifle,” or “Assault Magazine, (clip)?.” My guess would be an “Anti-gunner.” Someone who does not have a clue at to what a firearm is, does, looks like, etc.

    Diane F. sure has no clue, as do most of congress or the current administration.

    • mtman2 December 31, 2014, 2:08 pm

      Good point!
      So then the question should be who allowed ‘these-people’ to to take over if not us. IT WAS US- as WE the People slept!
      This then points to the prescribed reverse action to get involved and take all of it back just like they incrementally ensconced themselves in. WE must care enough about the Founders plan to become responsible to and for it setting things right.
      The newly dedicated majority is responsible, brains and involvement, not bullets will finally cure us of ‘parasites’ ~!

    • mtman2 December 31, 2014, 2:26 pm

      To enjoy seeing these parasites get schooled while they have to sit quietly watch+listen; see senator Ted Cruz educate them.
      Google it on youtube for some long deserved satisfaction, then get a load ofDiane Frankenstein’s exasperating reaction ~!

    • Mark in SC November 13, 2015, 6:35 pm

      The term Assault Rifle was coined by a liberal group hired by Dianne Feinstein. They held focus groups to determine a term that would produce the most terror and give her majority support to pass the original AWB back in ’94. Another example of the left creating words and definitions to meet their agenda.

      This is war and we better start treating it as such…

  • Janus Livingston August 18, 2014, 6:28 am

    The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to give citizens parity to fight a tyrant government, and in that case so called assault rifles are perfectly in line with the Constitution, you smug B*!

    • Ken August 18, 2014, 8:46 am

      You are “spot on” but the FIRST thing all God fearing Country loving Constitution supporting Americans MUST know and remember is; what the Constitution states and truly means simply does not matter to the liberal anti-second Amendment people.

    • Dpe May 1, 2017, 6:37 pm

      Janus, before you continue to resort to name calling and making up your own definition, just read this. It sounds like it’s your first chance to do so: “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”. Parity….not there. ‘Tyrant Government’ (your words anus)grammatically means ‘one person’. finally, this militia was the citizens. There was no army. So if the Brits came back, we the people were also we the army.

      So, Janus. About smug B ? Look in the mirror, if you don’t understand the law, and you don’t, the do us a favor and ride away on your broom stick you smug B 😂

  • DamnHer August 18, 2014, 3:18 am

    How is it that this judge can completely ignore the precedent set in the 1939 “Miller” case? That ruling was that ONLY arms that were appropriate for use by a Militia were protected by the 2nd. An “Assault Weapon” would be the most effective weapon for a member of the militia. It is obvious that these judges just make stuff up and insert their own agendas into rulings. Isn’t that the complete opposite of what a judge is supposed to do?

    • Joe McHugh August 19, 2014, 7:43 am

      Damnher, even the judges in the 1939 Miller ruling got it wrong! As you wrote, the judges in the Miller court ruled that only arms appropriate for use by the militia were appropriate under the Second Amendment. Actually ANY firearm is appropriate according to the Second Amendment. The Congress understood this fact when they passed the 1934 National Firearms Act. (N.F.A.). That gun law only stipulated that one must register any firearm that the law describes as being a “special firearm”.
      A crudely sawed off shotgun falls into this category as does the Browning Automatic Rifle. Tell me that a sawed off double barreled shotgun is is, or was ever, used by the militia!

      Yup, after you notify the designated Federal department that you have acquired one of these “special” firearms, you are free to keep and bear it as an inherent right. Even the Congress of 1934 knew how to read the one-sentence Second Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States? Present a sawed off shotgun the the learned justices at the Supreme Court and ask them if an ordinary citizen could legally own it. Even Justice Scalia would recoil in horror at the sight of such a device. But a clever lawyer could point out that it, and every other type of firearm, is legal to own according to the Second Amendment, by simply reviewing the N.F.A. gun law of 1934.

      Pssst! Want to use a silencer for your assassin handgun? Let the feds know about and pay the $200.00 transfer tax stamp and off you go on your merry legal way. The Second Amendment states what is written and means what it states. There is no ambiguity in the grammar or the intent of the Second Amendment.

      • DaveGinOly November 17, 2014, 3:56 pm

        The question of a sawed-off shotgun’s usefulness to a militia was exactly the question before the court. The government, of course, claimed they are not useful, ignoring the fact that they had in fact been used by the US military in WW I (demonstrating that they are militarily useful, and therefore useful to a militia). However, Miller’s side did not respond to the argument made to SCOTUS, so the government’s position was allowed to stand. I’m not sure this qualifies it as “case law,” especially when you consider that the case was remanded by the court back to the lower court for an actual decision – so there was no real opinion given by SCOTUS. At the appeals court, the case became moot because Miller had died and Layton (his co-defendant) made a plea. So the question was never properly settled. (An appeal upon a conviction could have caused the re-hearing of the arguments. Because this never happened, the Miller case was never actually “settled” by SCOTUS.)

        Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) disingenuously suggests that because two SCOTUS justices had served in the military that they could have refuted the government’s claim if the government’s claim was incorrect. However, justices properly rule only upon evidence and proofs put before the court by the parties that move them to consideration; they should not interject their own personal knowledge, except in so far that it guides their common sense. For instance, if evidence of the military use of sawed-off shotguns had been put before the court, a justice could use his own knowledge and experience to evaluate the evidence and come to his own conclusion about the veracity of the evidence that is presented.

        What is important about Miller is not the specifics argued by either side, but rather the generality argued by the government, that the 2nd Amendment protects militarily-useful firearms. Having made the argument, the government can’t subsequently argue otherwise, or it refutes the argument it made in Miller, opening up Miller for review. But as things are now, if the government wants to stand on Miller, it must accept that the amendment protects militarily-useful weapons.

  • Kimberwarrior45 August 13, 2014, 7:35 pm

    Please Judge tell us what the definition of “arms” were in 1791. The military arm of the time was a musket (smooth bore) and “are military-style weapons designed for offensive use” yet the shoulder fired weapon which was owned by most colonial men was a rifle which “and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity” since they were more accurate and had a much longer range. Following your logic you would have banned the rifle and probably the musket allowing colonist only the blunderbuss. And in case you are wondering the 1828 Webster’s dictionary define arms as “Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.” That is what the Founding Fathers and framers meant when they said arms. Now should we look at the word ‘infringed’ meaning “Broken; violated; transgresses” now please remember before infringed are the words SHALL NOT BE. Please explain how your ruling follows this when the document you are trampling limits what government can do to the individual. How does dangerous and unusual fit in here since all weapons are dangerous?

    • mtman2 December 31, 2014, 2:00 pm

      This is why WE need Patriot politicians+judges that reaffirm the common sense truth; and throw the usurping parasites out ~!

  • ZO666 August 13, 2014, 5:08 pm

    Obama and his band of thugs is the reason our fore fathers wrote the second! Now with his brotherhood entering through our unprotected boarders we will need them more than ever!

    • mtman2 December 31, 2014, 12:54 pm

      Good point!
      So then the question should be who allowed ‘these-people’ to to take over if not us. IT WAS US- as WE the People slept!
      This then points to the prescribed reverse action to get involved and take all of it back just like they incrementally ensconced themselves in. WE must care enough about the Founders plan to become responsible to and for it setting things right.
      The newly dedicated majority is responsible, brains and involvement, not bullets will finally cure us of ‘parasites’ ~!

  • Michael August 12, 2014, 6:45 pm

    Automobiles were dangerous and unusual too…in 1905!

    • Matt August 18, 2014, 4:57 pm

      They still are today in the wrong hands. I just have a bad feeling about all of this we are close to the tipping point.

      • Alex August 19, 2014, 9:30 pm

        Agreed, and that tipping point is the same thing that sparked the First American Revolution in 1776. The Second American Revolution is coming at us like a runaway freight train. At this point, with corrupted idiots like this judge calling the shots, I don’t think its avoidable unless we all want to be subjects instead of free citizens. I fought for my country overseas and I’m not afraid to fight for it domestically if needed. ALL service members took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC. It looks like we’re going to have to live up to that.

        • Mark in SC November 13, 2015, 6:11 pm

          I’ve been handicapped all my life and was never able to serve. But I’ll sit in my wheelchair to defend our constitutional republic and 2nd amendment until they pry my guns from my cold dead hands…

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend