"In common use"

Brooklyn · Aug 16, 2014

Pinecone said:
Absolutely NOT. The judge makes their decision based on the care presented to them.

If they were presented with large amounts of evidence that they are "in common use" and ignored it, THAT would be cause to seek sanctions.

Some think she did exactly that. But its worse. The statememt "common arms can not be banned" even if the correct interpretation of binding president does not mean " any not common arms can be banned". The Gov had the burden of proof to show that these are not arms within subject to 2a protection.

They punted the court let them. IS was not applied, and it was willful.

But I do not think there should be sanctions-- it think the price the court will pay is that they will no longer be considered in any way apolitical -- SCOUTS knows this, and they know how dangerous it can be esp Roberts IMHO.

It will take time but SCOTUS is not going to let its credibility go to hell. This is a " the dog ate my homework " decision . Is one thing to mount a serious argument with which I disagree, and another to 'punt' . This decision, coming in only 2 weeks is not a serious attempt. I may be deliberate to toss it up the line quickly but that's still what it is.

NO sanctions -- she did do us a favor by punting ..

Vile Shadow · Aug 16, 2014

Brooklyn said:
Some think she did exactly that. But its worse. The statememt "common arms can not be banned" even if the correct interpretation of binding president does not mean " any not common arms can be banned". The Gov had the burden of proof to show that these are not arms within subject to 2a protection.

I think she did exactly that, and that was my point. The gooberment has the burden of proof here since they're trying to outlaw something. But this judge wasn't about to be stymied by that little detail.

K.C.Dean · Aug 16, 2014

I see foxtrapper's veiw on this. The hunter should have the choice to use the weapon that works best for them. The AR 15 is versatile and can be used to hunt a variety of animals. That is why it is so popular with gun owners. A judge or any lawmaker should not have the authority to take that choice away. Since liberals love to use choice to condone passage of certain laws, then choice should be used when arguing laws pertaining to certain guns, magazines or types of bullets. It is our choice and that should end the conversation.

silanehead · Aug 16, 2014

I am concerned about the "trap" of using hunting as a primary proof of common use.
It seems that AR's and AK's are mostly used for target shooting, a whole lot of target shooting.
That sure sounds like a common use to me.

Markp · Aug 16, 2014

I leave you guys for only a few short years and this is what happens? :lol2:

In common use: AR-15 AK-47

It doesn't get any more common than these two platforms!!!

Sweet Jeezus what was this judge smoking... Oh I know, Meth, it's in common use.

Vile Shadow · Aug 16, 2014

K.C.Dean said:
I see foxtrapper's veiw on this. The hunter should have the choice to use the weapon that works best for them. The AR 15 is versatile and can be used to hunt a variety of animals. That is why it is so popular with gun owners. A judge or any lawmaker should not have the authority to take that choice away. Since liberals love to use choice to condone passage of certain laws, then choice should be used when arguing laws pertaining to certain guns, magazines or types of bullets. It is our choice and that should end the conversation.

Right to choose only works for abortion, unfortunately. :sad20:

ShafTed · Aug 16, 2014

Mark K said:
What pisses me off is the quote from the ruling that "the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes." Excuse me. That implies that they're commonly possessed for unlawful purposes. Really? It's probable that I possess my AR-15 for unlawful purposes???

The evidence to refute the judge's contention is readily available from the State Police. Their records indicate there are, what, probably over 100,000 ARs & AKs registered in Maryland. (I don't remember the actual number, too tired to look it up right now.) The MSP also reports a whopping ZERO crimes involving the use of an AR or AK. That means that 100,000 (or whatever the actual number is) of these rifles ALREADY ARE possessed in Maryland for lawful purposes.

I did cringe a little bit when the judge asked our side to cite home defense uses of banned rifles, and Sweeny didn't have a good answer. If something similar to what I wrote above wasn't included in the package sent to this judge, it should make interesting reading for the appeals court.

Vile Shadow · Aug 17, 2014

By this judge's IL-logic, if some libtard idiot proposes a Constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment, it should then fall on the 37 states it would take to ratify it to prove why it should NOT sail right through. :sad20:

That's funny. I thought liberals were "progressive", "moving forward" folks. But damned if this ain't ass-backwards. :rolleyes:

Mr H · Aug 17, 2014

Part of our problem nationally, is that a lot of the 'rights' groups are pushing the image of the AR platform in the rights conversation. OCT, CTCarry, RMGO are the three that come screaming to mind.

This is also the image the antis are using to great effect.

When they say "scary", why does our side trot out that same image and yell, "Dammit it's not scary!!!"

Use Moms protecting their children instead of nutcase females saying "scary".

Show youth shooting classes rather than kids cowering under a shadow of a "bad guy".

Tell the tales of self-protection in public, and get away from the rampage examples

Explain how homes are safer when properly armed, and lose the perception of the self-activating bad gun

Vile Shadow · Aug 17, 2014

Yesterday, when wifey was shooting her newly acquired birthday present, she saw first hand what a complete idiot Joe Biden is. She's better with the AR then her .22 target pistol actually.

River Mud · Aug 18, 2014

foxtrapper said:
This is just one small facet, and these pics acquired via one simple online search for images of "hunting with AR15". And this is JUST hunters using them. A very practical use for a...rifle. Obviously a LARGE # of hunters like them for coyotes, varmints, feral hogs, and even deer. Though not the 2A intention, however, how many liberals have you heard going on about " guns are OK for hunting"? So this judge couldn't use google or bing for 5 minutes?

This is one of my fallback positions on ARs' "common use" as well. However if you read the findings in this case, it appears that the plaintiff (our side) structured the argument specifically around home defense, allowing the defense and the judge to ignore AR use by hunters.

IANAL, but I did read the 94? page findings.

Mr H · Aug 18, 2014

Article from Ammoland over the weekend.

Very much worth reading!

http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/a-judge-distorts-gun-facts/

Vile Shadow · Aug 18, 2014

I wonder how much of Bloomturd's money it took for this Clintonoid to "reach" that decision. :rolleyes:

Matlack · Aug 18, 2014

Just a point here, how would a firearm become in "common use" if it is barred because it is not currently in common use? This is a paradox situation, one that is most likely placed to prevent any future firearms from being able to be permitted.

Just food for thought.

JohnnyE · Aug 18, 2014

Matlack said:
Just a point here, how would a firearm become in "common use" if it is barred because it is not currently in common use? This is a paradox situation, one that is most likely placed to prevent any future firearms from being able to be permitted.

Just food for thought.

...and since the only firearms in "common use" at the time the Constitution was adopted were flintlock muskets, nothing since then is protected today!

Maestro Pistolero · Aug 18, 2014

The common use test is not one that can be relied upon in a vacuum. Nor is dangerous and unusual, by itself, a standard that can answer all questions of what weapons fall under second amendment protection.

When new weapons technology is developed there is an inevitable period of time in which the technology is not yet in common use. We know from Heller that the second amendment protects arms designs not yet invented at ratification. But the common use test, applied alone, would prevent any newly developed weapon technology from second amendment protection.

Of more immediate concern is the recent Maryland District Court ruling that AR15's are dangerous and unusual. Here is a court that barely gives lip service to the common use test by simply "doubting" that the most common semiautomatic rifles in the country were in common use for lawful purposes. No serious inquiry, no facts, no data, no problem.

Fortunately that ruling is so poorly reasoned and badly written that it ought to be like shooting fish in a bucket on appeal. OUGHT to be.

Mark K · Aug 18, 2014

ShafTed said:
The evidence to refute the judge's contention is readily available from the State Police. Their records indicate there are, what, probably over 100,000 ARs & AKs registered in Maryland. (I don't remember the actual number, too tired to look it up right now.) The MSP also reports a whopping ZERO crimes involving the use of an AR or AK. That means that 100,000 (or whatever the actual number is) of these rifles ALREADY ARE possessed in Maryland for lawful purposes.

Well, we don't know that. They could all be kept at home until all 100,000 of us decide to suddenly open fire in a mall.

Actually, I can only speak for myself that that's not my intent. I don't know about the 99,999 rest of you.

I wonder how critical to the ruling was the finding that "the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes"? Because that statement is so obviously wrong that no higher court will read it with a straight face...

Mr H · Aug 18, 2014

Mark K said:
I wonder how critical to the ruling was the finding that "the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes"? Because that statement is so obviously wrong that no higher court will read it with a straight face...

This is precisely what calls her motives into question.

IMO, there's an angle here, and we have to "uffer"for it.

Mark K · Aug 18, 2014

Mr H said:
This is precisely what calls her motives into question.

IMO, there's an angle here, and we have to "uffer"for it.

I'm not calling her motives into question. I assume what she meant was "the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly needed for lawful purposes."

But that's not what she wrote. And neither possibility is good -- a judge with an agenda, or one that can't write a judgment accurately.

Maestro Pistolero · Aug 18, 2014

One thing that seems particularly disingenuous about the ruling is that, given her obvious awareness that the common use test was central to the decision, this judge astoundingly relies only on her doubt about how common the weapons are to render the decision. And it's not as if there wasn't ample evidence placed at her feet to obliterate her doubt.

She just wasn't going to consider any facts that would interfere with her decision to uphold a ban an entire class of arms, semi-automatic rifles, that are in the MOST common use by citizens for an endless array of lawful purposes.

Whistling past the graveyard on yet another glaring omission, no consideration was given to the still-existant first clause to the Second Amendment that relates to the militia purpose. Last time I checked that hasn't been written out of the Constitution, and not by Heller versus DC, IMO, as some would contend.

If the semi automatic, civilian–version of the standard issue small arm for our military isn't the ideal militia weapon, then I will eat my hat.

"In common use"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

I stand with John Locke.

...

Ultimate Member

Sarcastic Member

Ultimate Member

...

Ultimate Member

...

Unincited Co-Conservative

...

Active Member

Unincited Co-Conservative

...

Scribe

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Unincited Co-Conservative

Active Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics