Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

[JohnnyE]

Typically, an AR-15 is for "lots of tyranny."

View attachment 455497

This makes me smile. Thank you!

 

[Lafayette]

Let's get down to the basic premise of the 2nd Amendment. It was neither for protecting hunting, nor sport. It was because our Founding Fathers knew that government, while a necessary evil, required a citizenry with the means to resist the inevitable slides into tyranny. The fact our government is fighting so tirelessly to remove access to "weapons of war" from the citizenry, shows the necessity of us fighting to keep them.

Unconstitutionality | Encyclopedia.com

UNCONSTITUTIONALITYThe American concept of unconstitutionality was born before the Constitution was adopted. The stamp act congress of 1765, for example, declared that acts of Parliament imposing taxation without representation were unconstitutional and need not be obeyed. Then as now, of...

www.encyclopedia.com

Yep. 100%

 

[MattFinals718]

I would contend that the term assault weapon has no definition, as does sporting weapon. Gun digests definition is different from California's definition, which is different from Marylands definition which is different from any particular person's definition, etc etc. It is subjective, therefore undefinable.

Assault RIFLE, Battle rifle, revolver, pistol, shotgun, submachine gun, pcc, anti-material rifle, etc all have finite definitions.

This is my stance. For instance, let’s take the term “murder weapon.” It could be ANYTHING. Purpose and use defines it. If a candlestick sits on the mantle and lights the room, that’s one thing. But when you beat someone to death with it, it becomes eligible for the moniker “murder weapon.”

Assault weapon to me is equally meaningless AND meaningful. It only has purpose under specific circumstances - but if those circumstances come into being, then the term has meaning.

I’m just arguing that it doesn’t matter whether we say assault weapon or MSR. The point is that the 2A is unequivocal. It protects the individual right to possess bearable arms (for lawful purposes.)

Hope this clarifies things. If it doesn’t, I blame the bourbon.

I agree that "assault weapon" is an easy term to abuse, and also a difficult term to define, legally speaking. The fact that the 1994 Federal AWB just led to manufacturers changing "pre-ban" designs (e.g., TEC-9 became AB-10) demonstrates that there isn't a simple legal way to define an "assault weapon." So, too, does the variety of different state approaches to AWBs, with MD's being arguably the most flawed (i.e., most convenient for us).

That being said, I would still define the term - as I mentioned earlier - as including both fully automatic assault rifles, battle rifles, and submachine guns, and their semi-automatic Title I counterparts. I would define these weapons not so much by "features" (e.g., flash hiders), but rather by their underlying design philosophy, which is to be fired rapidly and controllably with minimal training, which means that they are better-suited to either suppressive fire or inflicting multiple casualties quickly. Can the Title I "assault weapons" be easily defined in law, vs. any other semi-automatic weapon? Not really, no - history has made this pretty clear. Should it be? Of course not - that is unconstitutional and contrary to the intent of the 2A. But like I said, our opponents are sometimes right, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

To give you an example that makes sense to me: I own both a Steyr SPP, which is a semi-automatic version of the TMP machine pistol, and several 9mm Glocks (my favorite being my Glock 34 Gen3). Both the SPP and my G34 are the same caliber (9x19mm), and I have magazines that can hold over 30 rounds for both. At my bachelor party last year, I fired both side-by-side. The difference to me is that the SPP is less accurate than the G34, but because it is based on an SMG design (i.e., it's heavier and has a bolt, rather than a slide), it is far easier to dump many rounds quickly down range with less recoil and muzzle climb than my G34. Could a mass shooter inflict a lot of casualties with either weapon? Absolutely, and it's been done (see: VA Tech, 2007, where the shooter used a G19 with 33-shot mags). Do I think it would be a lot easier to throw many rounds downrange faster with the SPP vs. the G34, and thus inflict more casualties faster? Probably. Do I think that difference is worth legislating in the form of an AWB? Also no.

 

[JohnnyE]

Let's get down to the basic premise of the 2nd Amendment. It was neither for protecting hunting, nor sport. It was because our Founding Fathers knew that government, while a necessary evil, required a citizenry with the means to resist the inevitable slides into tyranny. The fact our government is fighting so tirelessly to remove access to "weapons of war" from the citizenry, shows the necessity of us fighting to keep them.

Unconstitutionality | Encyclopedia.com

UNCONSTITUTIONALITYThe American concept of unconstitutionality was born before the Constitution was adopted. The stamp act congress of 1765, for example, declared that acts of Parliament imposing taxation without representation were unconstitutional and need not be obeyed. Then as now, of...

www.encyclopedia.com

I often challenge those claiming 2A protects only hunting by asking why doesn't the BOR then also not protect farming, trapping, herding, fishing...?

 

[Lafayette]

That being said, I would still define the term - as I mentioned earlier - as including both fully automatic assault rifles, battle rifles, and submachine guns, and their semi-automatic Title I counterparts. I would define these weapons not so much by "features" (e.g., flash hiders), but rather by their underlying design philosophy, which is to be fired rapidly and controllably with minimal training, which means that they are better-suited to either suppressive fire or inflicting multiple casualties quickly. Can the Title I "assault weapons" be easily defined in law, vs. any other semi-automatic weapon? Not really, no - history has made this pretty clear. Should it be? Of course not - that is unconstitutional and contrary to the intent of the 2A. But like I said, our opponents are sometimes right, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

I don’t know if you are agreeing or disagreeing. But I think you and I are saying roughly the same thing. The term doesn’t matter; it’s too hard and nebulous to define - especially legally.

Instead of a Hegelian pursuit of ever-narrowing terms, fight for the Constitutionally-protected right to possess and use ALL bearable arms. Frankly I could care less how the US Army or ForgottenWeapons or Karen from the red shirts defines assault weapon. All I care about is that it never become a legal definition.

 

[whiskey3]

I don’t know if you are agreeing or disagreeing. But I think you and I are saying roughly the same thing. The term doesn’t matter; it’s too hard and nebulous to define - especially legally.

Instead of a Hegelian pursuit of ever-narrowing terms, fight for the Constitutionally-protected right to possess and use ALL bearable arms. Frankly I could care less how the US Army or ForgottenWeapons or Karen from the red shirts defines assault weapon. All I care about is that it never become a legal definition.

Hegelian?

ok, show of hands, how many have read Hegel’s The Science of Logic? (Extra points for the original Greman)

 

[Lafayette]

Hegelian?

ok, show of hands, how many have read Hegel’s The Science of Logic? (Extra points for the original Greman)

*sheepishly raises hand*

(But not in the original German. My German is limited to “Ich mus aus klo” and “das ist ein Panzer-ass!”

 

[babalou]

I don’t know if you are agreeing or disagreeing. But I think you and I are saying roughly the same thing. The term doesn’t matter; it’s too hard and nebulous to define - especially legally.

Instead of a Hegelian pursuit of ever-narrowing terms, fight for the Constitutionally-protected right to possess and use ALL bearable arms. Frankly I could care less how the US Army or ForgottenWeapons or Karen from the red shirts defines assault weapon. All I care about is that it never become a legal definition.

Exactly. Having differing terms for differing weapons should not matter. you can have this, but not that or this looks scary but that does not. A firearm is a firearm. Trying to reason or fight back using the Left's terminology is wrong. They should be the ones setting the bar.

 

[babalou]

Hegelian?

ok, show of hands, how many have read Hegel’s The Science of Logic? (Extra points for the original Greman)

I have not. I know a little about the three things or whatever but not much

 

[MattFinals718]

I don’t know if you are agreeing or disagreeing. But I think you and I are saying roughly the same thing. The term doesn’t matter; it’s too hard and nebulous to define - especially legally.

Instead of a Hegelian pursuit of ever-narrowing terms, fight for the Constitutionally-protected right to possess and use ALL bearable arms. Frankly I could care less how the US Army or ForgottenWeapons or Karen from the red shirts defines assault weapon. All I care about is that it never become a legal definition.

Disagreeing with you that there's no such thing as an "assault weapon," even if the term is difficult to define legally. I've given you a definition that is impossible to execute legally, but does make sense intuitively to anyone familiar with the guns that get called "assault weapons."

Where I am agreeing with you is that I will still fight for the Constitutionally-protected right to own such weapons against the Karen Brigades.

Hegelian?

ok, show of hands, how many have read Hegel’s The Science of Logic? (Extra points for the original Greman)

It's a good reference on his part.

I have to admit that I've never read it, but I had friends in grad school who were studying Political Theory and used to discuss Hegel in front of me. So I at least got the reference, for what that counts...

 

[MattFinals718]

Exactly. Having differing terms for differing weapons should not matter. you can have this, but not that or this looks scary but that does not. A firearm is a firearm. Trying to reason or fight back using the Left's terminology is wrong. They should be the ones setting the bar.

You're still missing the point.

To summarize:
- The left is correct that there is a such thing as "assault weapons," and the idea of an "assault weapon" exists, even if a simple legal way to differentiate them from other semi-automatic weapons does not. That definition is not based on appearance alone.
- These "assault weapons" should not be banned, because if they are the weapons mostly useful to military purposes, then that makes them the most Constitutionally-protected firearms of all.

It is possible for both of these statements to be true at once.

What matters is that if we try to claim that there are no "assault weapons," only "modern sporting rifles" or "scary-looking black pistols" instead of "assault pistols," we're admitting that guns are only OK for civilians to own on the basis of their sporting or personal defense purposes. This is not a debate about semantics; it's about how we shape the narrative.

 

[Lafayette]

Disagreeing with you that there's no such thing as an "assault weapon," even if the term is difficult to define legally. I've given you a definition that is impossible to execute legally, but does make sense intuitively to anyone familiar with the guns that get called "assault weapons."

Thanks for clarifying. And just to shore up my statement, it’s not that I don’t believe assault weapons exist as a concept - just that nailing down a particular item is difficult. Intent and use makes the definition for me. Sometimes an AR-15 is an assault weapon. Ive seen some idiot use one as a hammer for tent-pegs.

Anyways, good discussion and apologies to the rest of the thread for the derail.

 

[dblas]

Thanks for clarifying. And just to shore up my statement, it’s not that I don’t believe assault weapons exist as a concept - just that nailing down a particular item is difficult. Intent and use makes the definition for me. Sometimes an AR-15 is an assault weapon. Ive seen some idiot use one as a hammer for tent-pegs.

Anyways, good discussion and apologies to the rest of the thread for the derail.

A very good discussion from both sides and with no name calling or resorting to "I'm blocking you because you don't agree with me."

Kudos to both of you.

 

[P-12 Norm]

I often challenge those claiming 2A protects only hunting by asking why doesn't the BOR then also not protect farming, trapping, herding, fishing...?

Yeah, by the Left's arguments, the First Amendment would only protect speech that is friendly, sweet and doesn't challenge the current social standards of the time. Unless you are a journalist or a Democrat politician. How about the 3rd? Maybe that only pertains to people who object to housing militia, and regular military CAN be housed?

 

[Apd09]

I've given you a definition that is impossible to execute legally, but does make sense intuitively to anyone familiar with the guns that get called "assault weapons."

So what you’re saying is that it’s a “common sense” approach?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[babalou]

You're still missing the point.

To summarize:
- The left is correct that there is a such thing as "assault weapons," and the idea of an "assault weapon" exists, even if a simple legal way to differentiate them from other semi-automatic weapons does not. That definition is not based on appearance alone.
- These "assault weapons" should not be banned, because if they are the weapons mostly useful to military purposes, then that makes them the most Constitutionally-protected firearms of all.

It is possible for both of these statements to be true at once.

What matters is that if we try to claim that there are no "assault weapons," only "modern sporting rifles" or "scary-looking black pistols" instead of "assault pistols," we're admitting that guns are only OK for civilians to own on the basis of their sporting or personal defense purposes. This is not a debate about semantics; it's about how we shape the narrative.

Ok i see your twist on it. To me the left should not define for us what is or is not sn assault weapon.

 

[Boats]

I agree that "assault weapon" is an easy term to abuse, and also a difficult term to define, legally speaking. The fact that the 1994 Federal AWB just led to manufacturers changing "pre-ban" designs (e.g., TEC-9 became AB-10) demonstrates that there isn't a simple legal way to define an "assault weapon." So, too, does the variety of different state approaches to AWBs, with MD's being arguably the most flawed (i.e., most convenient for us).

That being said, I would still define the term - as I mentioned earlier - as including both fully automatic assault rifles, battle rifles, and submachine guns, and their semi-automatic Title I counterparts. I would define these weapons not so much by "features" (e.g., flash hiders), but rather by their underlying design philosophy, which is to be fired rapidly and controllably with minimal training, which means that they are better-suited to either suppressive fire or inflicting multiple casualties quickly. Can the Title I "assault weapons" be easily defined in law, vs. any other semi-automatic weapon? Not really, no - history has made this pretty clear. Should it be? Of course not - that is unconstitutional and contrary to the intent of the 2A. But like I said, our opponents are sometimes right, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

To give you an example that makes sense to me: I own both a Steyr SPP, which is a semi-automatic version of the TMP machine pistol, and several 9mm Glocks (my favorite being my Glock 34 Gen3). Both the SPP and my G34 are the same caliber (9x19mm), and I have magazines that can hold over 30 rounds for both. At my bachelor party last year, I fired both side-by-side. The difference to me is that the SPP is less accurate than the G34, but because it is based on an SMG design (i.e., it's heavier and has a bolt, rather than a slide), it is far easier to dump many rounds quickly down range with less recoil and muzzle climb than my G34. Could a mass shooter inflict a lot of casualties with either weapon? Absolutely, and it's been done (see: VA Tech, 2007, where the shooter used a G19 with 33-shot mags). Do I think it would be a lot easier to throw many rounds downrange faster with the SPP vs. the G34, and thus inflict more casualties faster? Probably. Do I think that difference is worth legislating in the form of an AWB? Also no.

Exactly my point. That is your definition. Hence subjective based on what is easier for you to shoot quickly and accurately or their "underlying design philosophy".

I would counterpoint with:
The Colt AR-15 (underlying design is as a semi automatic military style rifle)

and

The Ruger mini 14 (underlying design as a varmint rifle)

See where your logic falls apart?

Also, you forgot about shotguns. The franchi Spas12 is considered an assault weapon by many, but the Benelli M3 isn't. It seems like they would BOTH be defined as assault weapons by you.

The BIGGEST problem with using a subjective term with regard to legislation is that it introduces a gray area, and is subject to abuse and overreach based on the bias of the person or organization using it. Basically it becomes a "we will know an assault weapon when we see it".....which is exactly what we have now.

The term assault weapon, regardless of it's origins, has become an over politicized term used only to polarize ignorant voters into supporting unconstitutional laws. Hell, even the term "rifle" and "shotgun" are difficult to define legally: a Mossberg 590 with a user installed birds head grip is a shotgun, a Mossberg shockwave isn't a shotgun...legally.

 

[eruby]

@Boats

Spot on



IMO, nothing should be banned, and no one should be prohibited

 

[pcfixer]

Search

No. 23-863
Title:	Dominic Bianchi, et al., Petitioners v. Anthony G. Brown, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, et al.
Docketed:	February 12, 2024

 

[Boats]

@Boats

Spot on



IMO, nothing should be banned, and no one should be prohibited

Thanks, and also this. If someone isnt "safe" enough to own a firearm, why are they out of jail?

The second amendment is a RIGHT, not a privilege.