Federal Hearing on Assault Weapon Ban in MD?

Rick3bears · Jan 21, 2015

Copyrighted text deleted.

Please read the rules on reposting stuff. Thanks. Z

Rick3bears · Jan 21, 2015

[URL="http://http://www.wbaltv.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-arguments-on-md-guncontrol-law/30812248"/URL]
This may not work. I'm not very good at this.

PJDiesel · Jan 21, 2015

"Lease restrictive means"

What does that mean?

MJD438 · Jan 21, 2015

Already a thread in flight - Kolbe v O'Malley - http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=159961

Independence · Jan 21, 2015

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-arguments-on-md-guncontrol-law/30812248

Use the above link

Mr H · Jan 21, 2015

I'm sure it was intended to read 'least'

But here's the crux of this, to me...

The 2A does not read '...the privilege of the people to keep and bear only the arms we approve of shall not be unregulated.'

PJDiesel · Jan 21, 2015

Yeah, seems that is what Frosh's quote is attempting to say.

The sphinx · Jan 21, 2015

F Frosh

rouchna · Jan 21, 2015

This was my post. Wonder if they'll approve it.

"The Second Amendment does not protect assault-style weapons and
high-capacity magazines. It's certainly not what the framers of the
Constitution intended when they drafted the Second Amendment." - Brian Frosh

Really???? Did the framers intend on the Internet, email, and social media to be protected by the First amendment...NO, but it still is.

WeaponsCollector · Jan 21, 2015

Idiots like Frosh are easy to disprove, he obviously never heard of the Girandoni rifle from the late 1700's that had a 22 round magazine. Thomas Jefferson certainly knew about it!

Hit and Run · Jan 21, 2015

rouchna said:
This was my post. Wonder if they'll approve it.

"The Second Amendment does not protect assault-style weapons and
high-capacity magazines. It's certainly not what the framers of the
Constitution intended when they drafted the Second Amendment." - Brian Frosh

Really???? Did the framers intend on the Internet, email, and social media to be protected by the First amendment...NO, but it still is.

Nope they meant muskets. Yep, those of all standing armies. The weapons used by armies at the time. In terms of rapid reload and fire, the best wespon of its day. Yep, they meant the weapons the armies of Europe had. That is the concept missed by the anti crowd miss when they offer this argument. The weapons to put a militia on footing with standing armies. Further broken down to individuals .

WeaponsCollector · Jan 21, 2015

"Thomas Jefferson's "ASSAULT RIFLE"

High-capacity magazine? Check.

Capable of firing 22 aimed shots in a minute? Check.

A military weapon? Check.

Manufactured during the American Revolutionary War? Check.

The Girandoni was a 22-shot, magazine-fed, nearly silent .46 caliber repeating rifle issued to elite Austrian troops from 1780-1815. Thomas Jefferson purchased two of these rifles, which he sent west with Lewis and Clark.

Remember it the next time some know-it-all-- says that the Founding Fathers only knew of muskets."

http://bearingarms.com/thomas-jeffersons-assault-rifle/

Brooklyn · Jan 21, 2015

Frosh is so cute when he talks with the grown ups..

TheSubieNinja7 · Jan 21, 2015

PJDiesel said:
"Lease restrictive means"

What does that mean?

Not sure if this is being facetious, but......"Least restrictive means" refers to the depth of review that a court gives a law that burdens individual rights. They look at the interest of the government and the way (means) they use to implement that interest. If the right that is burdened is a fundamental one, then the government must implement it in such a way that infringes upon the right the "least." Thus, if MD can achieve the goal of public safety through some other way that doesn't affect individual rights, an AWB is not the least restrictive way to achieve that goal and wouldn't be constitutional.

Unlikely that the 4th Circuit would give this case that high a level of review after Wollard though.

IANAL

Rick3bears · Jan 22, 2015

Sorry for the illegal post. Just trying to get the word out.

trickg · Jan 22, 2015

Ef Frosh - obviously he has not read "Heller" - this is quoted directly from the Heller decision:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), 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.

I can't seem to access the comments portion of the site - if someone wants to take the quote from above and add it to the conversation, be my guest.

Brooklyn · Jan 22, 2015

Frosh has read Heller.

He is not an idiot is a propagadist... just not a very good or imaginative one.

Every time he speaks we gain an advantage.
.

But no one other than us is listening

Makeing fun of Frosh..is high on my agenda.. but we need to control the message..

As a public figure his competence is a matter of public importance...

Vile Shadow · Jan 22, 2015

rouchna said:
This was my post. Wonder if they'll approve it.

"The Second Amendment does not protect assault-style weapons and
high-capacity magazines. It's certainly not what the framers of the
Constitution intended when they drafted the Second Amendment." - Brian Frosh

Really???? Did the framers intend on the Internet, email, and social media to be protected by the First amendment...NO, but it still is.

No, the 2A is only for hunting and shooting at orange disks. :rolleyes:

fabsroman · Jan 23, 2015

The argument I would make, and which I think would be the best one possible in this circumstance for Maryland, is that Maryland already had a system in place that burdened the purchasers rights, by requiring ALL purchasers of new and used "assault weapons" and handguns to complete a Form 77r and go through an extensive background check of 17 databases. While an infringement on the rights of the citizens, it was working. There had been no epidemic of crimes committed with "assault weapons" and there had been no mass shooting in Maryland with an "assault weapon".

I think this is a winning argument. What was in place prior to the ban was working, even though it was an infringement. So, there is no need for further infringement because of "what might happen", but had never happened under the less infringing registration/background check law.

As far as I am concerned, the citizens of the nation should be able to have the exact same bearable arms as the military. The 2nd Amendment was not for hunting, and it is my opinion that it is not for self defense either. It was there just in case something like the Revolutionary War was ever needed in the future against a tyrannical government. To me, this is what the 2nd Amendment is really about. So, I am in favor of citizens having the ability to buy an M-16, M249, and whatever else the military uses as bearable arms. Too bad they used "bear" in the 2nd Amendment. This is where I think the Founding Fathers made a mistake. They should have allowed cannons/bombs/artillery too.

Vile Shadow · Jan 23, 2015

What word would you have preferred in place of "bear"?

Federal Hearing on Assault Weapon Ban in MD?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Grumpy Old Coot

Grumpy Old Coot

Banned

Ultimate Member

long member

Banana'd

Banned

Ultimate Member

Defund the ATF

EXTREME GUN OWNER

Ultimate Member

EXTREME GUN OWNER

I stand with John Locke.

Member

Grumpy Old Coot

Guns 'n Drums

I stand with John Locke.

...

Ultimate Member

...

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics