Author Topic: 4th Circuit Court: Maryland assault weapons ban is constitutional  (Read 771 times)

Online Mr. Bill

  • Like a hot cocoa mojito
  • Administrator
  • Forum Veteran
  • *******
  • Posts: 14016
  • Karma: 1849
  • Trained Attack Sheepdog/Troll hunter
    • Website Maintenance and Online Presence Management by Mr. Bill
Courthouse News Service, 2/23/17: Fourth Circuit Upholds Maryland Assault-Weapon Ban

...The Fourth Circuit’s decision comes in the case Kolbe v. Hogan, which questioned whether the guns and magazines that Maryland banned qualify as dangerous and unusual weapons, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled are outside the scope of the Second Amendment.

In February 2016, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit vacated a federal judge’s ruling that the ban was constitutional, finding that the assault weapons and large-capacity magazines at issue are protected by the Second Amendment. That finding was vacated when the court decided last March to rehear the case en banc.

On Tuesday, the full appeals court ruled 10-4 that the category of weapons and magazines included in Maryland’s ban are weapons that would be most useful for military purposes. ...

The Fourth Circuit’s majority held that Maryland’s ban covers weapons that dangerous and unusual because they are “exceptionally lethal weapons of war” that are not appropriate for civilian use.

“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 wrote. ...

Offline Chemsoldier

  • Pot Stirrer
  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 5714
  • Karma: 544
Re: 4th Circuit Court: Maryland assault weapons ban is constitutional
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2017, 09:33:10 PM »

You know, I always thought the colloquial conservative take on the 2nd Amendment was wrong. That it only covered the common defense/external threat/insurrectionist angle. That hunting and individual self-defense against criminality was a separate unenumerated right covered by the 9th and 10th amendment.

This argument hinges on that issue. If it doesn't cover military style weapons...what the hell does it cover?