Maryland Federal Judge Upholds Gun Ban

[Redbaron007]

Maryland says 'Assault Weapons' and large capacity mags are not welcome here; they are dangerous; not common enough. Here's the FOX article:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...n-control-law/

Also, for those who want to read the judges rant, here it is:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ss-Motion1.pdf

 

[skidmark]

Sadly, this is not "news". It's also not "news" that judges uphold existing laws unless you can show serious flaws in the law.

Thankfully, there are some Marylanders who are working hard to change the laws behind the current restrictions.

stay safe.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

The Judges 'ruling' is unwelcome more like as it's unconstitutional and can't even legally be made.

 

[skidmark]

The Judges 'ruling' is unwelcome more like as it's unconstitutional and can't even legally be made.

Please check your bubble - I have great concerns that it has burst.

Not that I support or agree with the "higher" court (Circuit Court of Appeals/SCOTUS) decisions, but the boat has already sailed on "reasonable restrictions".

The work is in getting legislative changes so as to be able to make those decisions no longer viable.

stay safe.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

She had lots of serious flaws in her decisions.

Her lack of ability or her unwillingness to do her job as a justice is blatant.

Statist judges ruling in favor of the state has been happening for a long long time.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Please check your bubble - I have great concerns that it has burst.

Not that I support or agree with the "higher" court (Circuit Court of Appeals/SCOTUS) decisions, but the boat has already sailed on "reasonable restrictions".

The work is in getting legislative changes so as to be able to make those decisions no longer viable.

stay safe.

We should all be in the 'bubble' of insisting on constitutional carry. Thats the way it is regardless of the number of people who fail to accept the final authority of the Constitution. I would submit to you that you in fact do at least accept the rulings of SCOTUS etc because you are willing to submit to them regardless of whether it or any other court has the right to make the rulings it does.

 

[Maverick9]

I would hope that includes the police in the ban. If there are no 'assault weapons' then no need for the cops to be over-armed, no?

 

[davidmcbeth]

Hands up if anyone thought a different result ... no hands I figure

SCOTUS may not take another significant case for 50 more years ....

What ya gonna do?

 

[swinokur]

Plaintiffs said they will appeal to 4CA in Richmond.

 

[skidmark]

Plaintiffs said they will appeal to 4CA in Richmond.

What is that quote about insanity ascribed to Einstein?

stay safe.

 

[swinokur]

Well I guess they feel they just can't give up and go home without exhausting all their options even if the outcome seems pretty predictable.

I'm ok with that.

 

[Redbaron007]

Without reading all the reference cases; her predisposition seemed to leave the Gun Ban in place before she ever started the bench trial. When it came to having experts provide testimony, she seemed to side with the defendants and their 'experts' and gave them a little more leeway than the plaintiffs. She quoted Daubert decision several times (which is not out of the norm for experts); however, seemingly to justify the allowance of the experts for the defendants, but not necessarily for the plaintiffs.

IMHO, she took great latitudes to get to her analysis of Heller I & II. Basically, she came to the conclusion that Heller I & II said it was ok to ban firearms that were not common and would provide great danger in public, i.e. machine guns. Therefore, since she was provided data that less than 3% of gun owners have an AR/AK platform, less than 1% for Maryland, this is not common enough. She said although millions have been sold, most of them were sales to already owners of the platform; subsequently, again, not a common firearm in the public. As for the large capacity magazines, based upon the defendants data, most home defense situations only require 2.5 shots; therefore, the 10 round max was more than sufficient.

 

[OC for ME]

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. - Mark Twain

She apparently takes this little tidbit from Mr. Twain to heart.

 

[Redbaron007]

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. - Mark Twain

She apparently takes this little tidbit from Mr. Twain to heart.

She would do well with the Chinese Acrobats.

 

[Freedom1Man]

First off, you beat me to this news. That is cool I am glad that I was not the only one concerned enough to post it.

Here is another article.
http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/ar...s-semi-automatic-rifles-dangerous-and-unusual

I would hope that includes the police in the ban. If there are no 'assault weapons' then no need for the cops to be over-armed, no?

Based on the following clip, I would say that the ban would have to affect the police.

"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," Blake wrote in her August 12 opinion. "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."

To me, this is saying that the police are only looking(/hoping?) to kill people by being armed with these model weapons. It would also imply that the police never use them for any lawful activity.

Again that is just my opinion on what she said.

 

[wittmeba]

I don't recall the phrase "...dangerous and unusual..." being a criteria in the second amendment.

And from the first posted article, "In summary...". Is it suggested that criminals are also going to follow this ban and not use these assault rifles and high capacity magazines?

Our courts still think they can affect criminal behavior with laws and they keep trying at the expense of the law abiding citizens.

 

[mikeyb]

Therefore, since she was provided data that less than 3% of gun owners have an AR/AK platform, less than 1% for Maryland, this is not common enough. She said although millions have been sold, most of them were sales to already owners of the platform; subsequently, again, not a common firearm in the public. As for the large capacity magazines, based upon the defendants data, most home defense situations only require 2.5 shots; therefore, the 10 round max was more than sufficient.

Well, based on those numbers, only 1.35mm-1.65mm own an AR/AK platform-based rifle. In the recording industry, that'd be certified Platinum.

How the judge came to the belief that over a million rifles doesn't constitute common is amazingly idiotic. She lacked to provide a criteria for defining "common."

 

[Redbaron007]

Well, based on those numbers, only 1.35mm-1.65mm own an AR/AK platform-based rifle. In the recording industry, that'd be certified Platinum.

How the judge came to the belief that over a million rifles doesn't constitute common is amazingly idiotic. She lacked to provide a criteria for defining "common."

She and the defendants stretched it quite a bit. There is no question, when reading her decision, she was doing everything in her power to not have to rule against it.

If one reads her opinion, please make sure you pay attention to the footnotes. As in many professions, the footnotes tell the story or at least give a lot of context to the opinion.

 

[marshaul]

To me, this is saying that the police are only looking(/hoping?) to kill people by being armed with these model weapons. It would also imply that the police never use them for any lawful activity.

Well, by all appearances that's basically true.

 

[swinokur]

will be appealed to the 4CA in Richmond.