Federal Hearing on Assault Weapon Ban in MD?

swinokur · Jan 23, 2015

own? possess?

i dunno.

w2kbr · Jan 23, 2015

As I see it, this is probably a "no-win" situation..
The 4th CCA, and Frosh!!!!!!

I doubt a victory for the People in this case..unfortunately.....

R

BeoBill · Jan 23, 2015

The sphinx said:
F Frosh

I'm beginning to think that Frosh is trying to become a Bloomberg hand puppet.

Mark75H · Jan 23, 2015

swinokur said:
own? possess?

i dunno.

Those could too easily be solely restricted to inside the home.

Bear ... means what it means, meant what it meant ... no matter how many aircraft carriers or cannons a tyrant controls, he does not control citizens bearing their own arms. They picked the right word.

oldman12 · Jan 23, 2015

BeoBill said:
I'm beginning to think that Frosh is trying to become a Bloomberg hand puppet.

He would love Bloomturd up is arse.

fabsroman · Jan 23, 2015

Sling Blade said:
What word would you have preferred in place of "bear"?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and [use weapons of whatsoever kind], shall not be infringed.

tomh · Jan 24, 2015

oldman12 said:
He would love Bloomturd up is arse.

Of course he would. Bloomturd would be funding his run for Governor. It's all about money.

Vile Shadow · Jan 24, 2015

fabsroman said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and [use weapons of whatsoever kind], shall not be infringed.

I don't really see anything wrong with "bear".

The way I read it, "keep" means to own and possess, while "bear" means to carry.

fabsroman · Jan 24, 2015

Sling Blade said:
I don't really see anything wrong with "bear".

The way I read it, "keep" means to own and possess, while "bear" means to carry.

If you read Heller, you will understand that SCOTUS limited the 2nd Amendment to apply to "bearable" arms, which it views as those that can be carried, borne, by hand. Hence, no artillery, tanks, planes, or bombs.

That is why I would suggest KEEP and USE WEAPONS of any kind whatsoever.

Use in lieu of "bear" and weapons in lieu of "arms". This is where our forefathers lacked foresight. They should have known better since they were already using canons at that time.

Yellowhand · Jan 24, 2015

Horseshit! SCOTUS misinterprets bear, to "bearable"?!! My interpretation of bear denotes the ability to not only bear arms, but the ability to bring to bear arms whether those able to be carried or trundled. I maintain that the founding fathers knew what they said and said what they meant and the only problem is the progressive, socialist, elitist attitude that the 2A and all the other Amendments are subject to interpretation..."FOUL", you liberal,elitist %#@&suckers!!!

EL1227 · Jan 25, 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.

Please welcome our new Attorney General who, much to our chagrin, is allowed to make public {but personal} pronouncements on constitutionality. However, he is NOT allowed to make or change law. ONLY the legislature can do that. {So vote wisely} He is also NOT the final determiner of constitutionality. THAT would be SCOTUS. Frosh is also NOT a historian.

But, Dave Kopel IS a 2A historian ... and Kopel IS also a legal scholar who has argued before SCOTUS

American author, attorney, political science researcher, gun rights advocate, and contributing editor to several publications. He is currently Research Director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado, Associate Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute, contributor to the National Review magazine and Volokh Conspiracy legal blog. Previously he was Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University, and Former Assistant Attorney General for Colorado.

The AR-15 And The Second Amendment: No Respect
It’s the best-selling type of rifle in America today, yet the gun prohibition lobbies want to make it a crime for you to own one.

Compare Kopel's video to this one from WMAL featuring Frosh ...

teratos · Jan 25, 2015

fabsroman said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and [use weapons of whatsoever kind], shall not be infringed.

I think "bear" is still good. The people still reserve the power to overthrow the government just with bearable arms. I think the arguments some of the anti's make about not being able to overthrow the government because they have nukes and jets are not well thought out.

fabsroman said:
If you read Heller, you will understand that SCOTUS limited the 2nd Amendment to apply to "bearable" arms, which it views as those that can be carried, borne, by hand. Hence, no artillery, tanks, planes, or bombs.

That is why I would suggest KEEP and USE WEAPONS of any kind whatsoever.

Use in lieu of "bear" and weapons in lieu of "arms". This is where our forefathers lacked foresight. They should have known better since they were already using canons at that time.

Can you imagine if some psycho decided to hit a school with artillery? Bloomberg's head would explode.

Brooklyn · Jan 25, 2015

The court did not limit bear to bearable, yet. They may do that they may not.

They said the 2a must protect bearable arms. Its a lower bound not an upper bound.

Let the antis misinterprete. If is bearable is protected does in any way imply that if its not bearable its not protected.

Blacksmith101 · Jan 25, 2015

In colonial times militias and individuals owned cannons. In the Civil War some military units were outfitted with privately purchased firearms.

From U.S. History web page on Lexington and Concorde.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/11c.asp

Lt. Col. Smith's Report to Gen. Gage

In obedience to your Excellency's commands, I marched on the evening of the 18th inst. with the corps of grenadiers and light infantry for Concord, to execute your Excellency's orders with respect to destroying all ammunition, artillery, tents, &c., collected there, which was effected, having knocked off the trunnions of three pieces of iron ordnance, some new gun carriages, a great number of carriage wheels burnt, a considerable quantity of flour, some gunpowder and musket balls, with other small articles thrown into the river. Notwithstanding we marched with the utmost expedition and secrecy, we found the country had intelligence or strong suspicion of our coming, and fired many signal guns, and rung the alarm bells repeatedly; and were informed, when at Concord, that some cannon had been taken out of the town that day, that others, with some stores, had been carried three days before ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun

The Gatling gun was first used in warfare during the American Civil War. Twelve of the guns were purchased personally by Union commanders and used in the trenches during the siege of Petersburg, Virginia (June 1864-April 1865).[5] Eight other Gatling guns were fitted on gunboats.[6]

Pushrod · Jan 26, 2015

fabsroman said:
If you read Heller, you will understand that SCOTUS limited the 2nd Amendment to apply to "bearable" arms, which it views as those that can be carried, borne, by hand. Hence, no artillery, tanks, planes, or bombs.

That is why I would suggest KEEP and USE WEAPONS of any kind whatsoever.

Use in lieu of "bear" and weapons in lieu of "arms". This is where our forefathers lacked foresight. They should have known better since they were already using canons at that time.

At least we can use those bearable weapons to obtain the crew-served weapons if circumstances ever called for it.

pcfixer · Jan 27, 2015

Mr H said:
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.'

Absolutely correct 100% Why aren't more in the "I will not comply"?

Bagpiperer · Jan 27, 2015

Based on the historical and contextual interpretation of the Second Amendment's scope outlined in Heller, one would expect that artillery pieces are necessarily protected arms. Given that artillery pieces are not bearable arms, and Scalia's comment about the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons, a prohibition on trundling a cannon behind you seems both perfectly reasonable and within the constitutional remand of state governments.

Nuclear explosives' safe storage requirements and destructive potential are so acute that it seems eminently reasonable and constitutional to prohibit their private ownership. With respect to tanks, jets, and artillery, I expect the historical tradition of ensuring that such arms are stored safely (e.g. in a guarded public armory) would be a constitutional solution which appropriately balanced the state's interest in public safety and the individual's right. It is, in any case, rather a moot question since few people have the money and inclination to own and maintain such weapons.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to facilitate revolution or secession, but rather to ensure it does not become necessary in the first place, by helping secure the unenumerated but similarly inalienable right of self-defense. A people which cherishes its right to armed (and thus effective) defense of hearth and home is a self-reliant people much less prone to trade liberty for illusory security.

Realistically, we can win battles in court that will preserve our rights, but we will be fighting a rearguard until Marylanders as a whole reject the idea that the state can and should be leveraged to eliminate every danger from society. We need to convince our fellow citizens that the only legitimate purpose of government is the sure foundation and permanent security of liberty.

OrbitalEllipses · Jan 27, 2015

Pushrod said:
At least we can use those bearable weapons to obtain the crew-served weapons if circumstances ever called for it.

I got your HK Mk. 23 right here...

pcfixer · Jan 28, 2015

Bagpiperer said:
We need to convince our fellow citizens that the only legitimate purpose of government is the sure foundation and permanent security of liberty.

Absolutely... I have been do so. When will the rest start?

Blacksmith101 · Jan 29, 2015

Who says cannons aren't bearable? This YouTube video of a British Military competition proves them wrong. It is a race between two teams to manhandle a cannon and limber over an obstacle course. Over walls and across simulated rivers and through small spaces, they have to disassemble the guns and at the end reassemble them and fire a shot to stop the clock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VslIuK-bAHg

Federal Hearing on Assault Weapon Ban in MD?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

In a State of Bliss

MSI EM, NRA LM, SAF, AAFG

Crank in the Third Row

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

...

Ultimate Member

Active Member

R.I.P.

My hair is amazing

I stand with John Locke.

Grumpy Old Man

Master Blaster

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics