What the heck...





http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court-cases/breaking-federal-judge-rules-ar-15s-are-dangerous-and-unusual-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment/





The shit never stops...  I know it says Maryland, but I worry it could spill over here at some point....

 

That will last about 8 seconds anywhere outside that dillrods courtroom.

He can go eat a bag of dirty d!$&%.

I don't see that holding up.

I believe it is a She . Clinton appointee  

She can go f herself with a bayonet.

Okay, the bitch can then....

Name is Catherine but I'm not sure there isn't a frank & beans there.    









 

No one said you had to look pretty to be a judge.

Don't even have to be smart or intelligent either.

Hey, she IS pretty, pretty FUGLY!

We get done got ourselves a brand new "strict scrutiny".  I doubt a gun ban based
on "unusual and dangerous" would pass muster in MO now.  

And another thing, wtf is dangerous and unusual?  Is that a serious legal term or made up bullshit?
Her fuckin' eyebrows are dangerous and unusual.

The AR-15 is probably the most ubiquitous gun in America right now, how does that equate to unusual?
Dangerous?  Yep guns can be dangerous, that is kinda the point.

Oh and as for that judge...
That bitch eats more carpet that swarm of hungry moths.
Lesbian, that is.  And not in a good girl-on-girl porn way either.

There are conflicts between Heller and US v. Miller (1939), but let's use the base argument to our advantage.  If I were writing an appeal for the Maryland case, I would start with the existing precedent of Miller.  The Miller decision states that a gangster's sawed-off shotgun is of no military value, and if it is of no military value to able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 [the militia definition found at 10 U.S. Code § 311(a)], then it is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, and as such is subject to regulation by the National Firearms Act.  (so Miller would have went to Federal prison for having a short barreled shotgun and not paying the manufacturers tax for the NFA stamp, had he had not been killed otherwise; too bad the subject of WW I trench guns never came up in spite of the fact two of the sitting justices were WW I vets).

Now the reason I bring this up is the Maryland case is in direct conflict with the established precedent from Miller, however flawed Miller may be.  The judge's decision repetitively refers to "Common Use" which, per Miller, is the incorrect test.  I would argue 'til I was blue in the face that the correct test would be whether the rifle is "of militia value" based upon the Miller precedent, regardless of the flaws in Miller.  (Miller -"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. " Id., at 178)  By the very argument the state is using (too dangerous, kills too many people too quickly), the rifle, and it's high capacity ammunition feed devices, are clearly "of militia value".  ( I would even argue this may be a chink in the armor of the NFA itself, if pressed with the right court)  The judge's comment that a Modern Sporting Rifle (I *HATE* the term Assault Weapon) is dangerous and unusual just shows her personal bias against the black rifle / AR-15 platform.  I would also argue that the High Cap Magazine ban also goes against Miller, when we have agreements with our allies on what magazine we will use (NATO STANAG 4179 - Oct 1980).  If we agreed with NATO on the 30 round AR mag, wouldn't we want our militia to use it too?

The next issue for the judge is to establish whether there exists sufficient justification for a district court to break the stare decisis of a decided Supreme Court case.  Miller, as imperfect as it is, is the standing case for what is, and what is not suitable "of militia value" to the Second Amendment.  Until it is over turned, Miller is the established precedent and this case did not establish sufficient justification to break stare decisis..

Sooner or later the self defense right confirmed by Heller will have to be reconciled with the "militia / of militia value" rights confirmed by Miller.  However as a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, I do not portray one on TV, and I did not sleep at Holiday Inn Express last night.

Sawed off shotguns will get their day in court again.  To quote Heller:

"Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment
in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236.

It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled
shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment 50 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that
this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right."

You are correct sir, The greater valid points for the AR to be a constitutionally protected arm is in Heller.

Scalia clearly designates that an arm derived of "technological" advances is protected from infringement such as modern forms of communication & storage of information. He put this in light that he called oppositionists assertion that only arms that existed at the time of the writing are constitutionally protected. He called this argument "Bordering on the frivolous", & states even in exact words "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-m-16 rifles & the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the predatory clause, But as we have said the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sort of LAWFUL weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty....but the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the predatory clause & the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the Right." DC v HELLER pg. 55

THAT is the argument by which it can not be banned.

Heller came out after the AWB ended & therefore supercedes it's precedence as an acceptable form of legislation.

Whoever argued this case was a mental midget in front a Judge with absolute contempt for civil liberties.