New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Hope this isn't a harbinger of things to come with the SAFE Act lawsuits.

"Upon review of all the parties' evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual," wrote U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake, a 1995 appointment to the court by President Clinton.

"First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. 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 court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs' claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.

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.

Finally, despite the plaintiffs' claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, 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."

Full story here:

Federal judge upholds Maryland's ban on ARs; Calls them "dangerous and unusual"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
Reading this is like, but what about, but what about, but what about... If facts don't support your view that guns are evil, just ignore them apparently.

For example on why AR' s can be banned:

To explain this, she noted the Supreme Court indicated in Heller that military grade M-16 rifles could be banned as dangerous and unusual, then went on to write "Given that assault rifles like the AR-15 are essentially the functional equivalent of M-16s - and arguably more effective - the same reasoning would seem to apply here."
WHAT? On the bright side, seeing as M16 is less effective as civilian AR, it would make sense based on this ruling that it would be more safe for people to own select fire instead of semi, which is great going on to the next level...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
Reading this is like, but what about, but what about, but what about... If facts don't support your view that guns are evil, just ignore them apparently.

For example on why AR' s can be banned:

WHAT? On the bright side, seeing as M16 is less effective as civilian AR, it would make sense based on this ruling that it would be more safe for people to own select fire instead of semi, which is great going on to the next level...
So that's why DRMO is issuing M16's to local police departments! They're just trying to lead by example by not using the biggest and best equipment around for their job. Got it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,575 Posts
It appears the phrase "Intermediate Scrutiny" will become a recurring theme in these decisions. In other words, how much of an actual burden on the populace these restrictions represent. Based on a post from about a week and a half ago - it seems some of the members of SCOTUS are interested in what is in common practice. It seems they were using the counts of 4473 records on AR-15's to decide the level of burden.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,391 Posts
Hope this isn't a harbinger of things to come with the SAFE Act lawsuits.

the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right,

Wait, What the fk over?? they are used for self defense by the police and similar ones are used for self defense by the military but they are not good for self defense in the home??? Just how the fk does that work??


"First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. 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.

8.2 million? I think ther are 8.2 million on gun broker alone. Theve been selling these things since the 1950"s and 60's 8 million my azz. Absolute falsehood.


The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs' claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.

the statistics from the FBI prove the court is falsifying evidence

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.

Except that they are used by the police for self defense , they don't use them for self defense as often as the police do
.

Finally, despite the plaintiffs' claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, 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."

What the fk?? First nobody can buy automatic weapons , its not what the case is about. Second a weapon , ANY FKING WEAPON can be used for offensve or defense depending on the situation there is no such thing nor was there nor will there ever be a gun or any weapon that can be used only in defense.

Full story here:

Federal judge upholds Maryland's ban on ARs; Calls them "dangerous and unusual"
What is dangerous and unusual' is this judge and this court to the American way of life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
899 Posts
Oh, come on she's just winging it because she was told to. What did you expect?

It's like being tasked to write a high school term paper, and you know that if your view matches that of the teacher, you get an A no matter how shoddy your work. What would you do?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
Oh, come on she's just winging it because she was told to. What did you expect?

It's like being tasked to write a high school term paper, and you know that if your view matches that of the teacher, you get an A no matter how shoddy your work. What would you do?
Hey, atleast she didn't quote mother-****ing-jones in her decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,901 Posts
Clinton Judge did you expect any less. To say they aren't in common use is a blatant delusion, did they cover suited militia use in the decision or did they skirt right over that too. Nice to pick and choose the parts of Heller that fit your view and ignore the rest.

Intermediate scrutiny, PLEASE no law should exist unless it passes the Highest level of scrutiny PERIOD. And no government interest should supersede American rights EVER!

Hey, atleast she didn't quote mother-****ing-jones in her decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
I think this is GREAT! The ruling is so weak and full of BS it should be a cinch to overturn on appeal!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
get used to the courts handing down these innacurate verdicts. They are ruling on feelings, not facts. How can they say unusual. That can be proven, just look at all the sales of ar's and ak's etc, they are actually the most popular. But again, this is what they want and will not listen or apply reason. Same reason we are going to be screwed forever in NY with the Safe Act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,901 Posts
"Blake also found in her ruling that rounds fired from assault weapons have enhanced penetrating capabilities and therefore pose a higher risk to both law enforcement than the bullets fired from other types of firearms. Nevertheless, when plaintiffs questioned the practice under the ban of allowing retired law enforcement officers to receive and keep assault weapons and large capacity magazines, she dismissed the objection saying, "they are better equipped than the general public to handle and store firearms safely."

Anyone else feel a need to vomit. Hey Blake take a trip to the Police Practice range some time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,522 Posts
Lol, enhanced penetrating.. sounds like she is making a wish list for her bedroom. And anyone who knows anything can refute that. A standard 16" barrel delivers less fps/energy than a longer barrel typically gound on most hunting rifles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
It is pointless to believe these anti-gun, anti-2nd Amend. judges will see the ill-logic reasons for these "assault weapon" bans.
The gun-grabbing Libs love to use "Demonizing Phases" like - spray from the hip, offensive attack, military style, assault, mass murder and more lethal.
They keep saying it over and over and over again to a point ever pro-gunners start to use the term "Assault Weapon". We are dealing with ill-rational people, that have probably never even held a gun no less fired one.

I have my semi-auto, mag. feed, pistol grip firearms for a reason. Because the US military adopted that platform. The local police across the nation uses that platform. And if its good enough the them its good enough for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,557 Posts
isn't the definition of common use: used by both military and police as well as other civilian agencies and the people?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
Lol, enhanced penetrating.. sounds like she is making a wish list for her bedroom. And anyone who knows anything can refute that. A standard 16" barrel delivers less fps/energy than a longer barrel typically gound on most hunting rifles.
We can go on all day in fighting our case. Ever wonder if the lawyers mounting the appeal are the same knowledgeable to sound believable and able to argue every single point.

On the other hand, I bet the judge is of the population, "the sheeple in the suburbs" and thinks no one needs a gun at all and all are scary to include the people who own them.

She is just ensuring one thing for sure is that Maryland will be overrun by the neighboring states when "resources" are needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,383 Posts
wasn't there a discussion about the Constitution referring to weapons of like kind...for use ? If so, with all the hub bub about militarization of police department, the "black guns" in use and being banned, that Mr. Joe public has are a grade lower in "quality" as they are strickly semi automatic....so the argument the "black rifles" should be banned is ........crap

AND..if the govenor of texas can be arrested for abuse of power.....why are they waiting to serve notice to obummer ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
It appears the phrase "Intermediate Scrutiny" will become a recurring theme in these decisions. In other words, how much of an actual burden on the populace these restrictions represent. Based on a post from about a week and a half ago - it seems some of the members of SCOTUS are interested in what is in common practice. It seems they were using the counts of 4473 records on AR-15's to decide the level of burden.


I thought 4473's were not .Gov records, and never left the FFL's place of Biz ...
do tell ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,735 Posts
I read her whole opinion on this case and I will tell you that I'm very sure this will be appealed cause the reasoning she used to come her conclusion is so far off the mark it's not even funny . Most of her reasoning holds no water when using Heller , McDonald , Miller or any other 2 A case opinion . The holes in her opinion are large enough to " drive a dump truck through " and I'm pretty sure that the lawyer that first tried the case will not be back as from what I understand that this will be taken over by another successful 2 A lawyer . Who I'm not sure at this time but it will soon be known ! I like our odds on this one ! She must of been off her " meds " when she wrote her opinion !
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top