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

[dblas]

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.

I believe the same, if a person has served their time and their probation and is no longer under the control of either, they should receive ALL of their rights back.
If, however, a person is deemed too "unsafe" to own a firearm, then they should either be a permanent resident of the correction system, or be on lifetime supervised probation.

 

[Apd09]

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

Is there an update from when the docket was posted last week? IANAL so I’m wondering if this is different than when the docket link was posted on 2/12.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pcfixer]

Is there an update from when the docket was posted last week? IANAL so I’m wondering if this is different than when the docket link was posted on 2/12.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No update! I didn't see last week post.

 

[Steel Hunter]

No update! I didn't see last week post.

You are correct. I have an email subscription to the docket, there haven't been any further updates.

 

[fabsroman]

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

Whoever asserts that 2A only protects hunting, is a complete and utter imbecile and/or terrible uneducated. I am not sure it is even worth having a debate with them because they just do not know the basics. They might not even understand what the 4th of July is about, probably just a reason to drink alcohol and eat a lot of red meat while watching the pretty fireworks.

 

[CrueChief]

IF we use their words/ terms we have given them the benefit of fighting them within their premise. Which in my minds gets us distracted and fighting over what the word or term means and what gets included. When we should dismiss their entire premise from the start.

 

[Blacksmith101]

IF we use their words/ terms we have given them the benefit of fighting them within their premise. Which in my minds gets us distracted and fighting over what the word or term means and what gets included. When we should dismiss their entire premise from the start.

+1
The only words/terms that matter are those as defined by SCOTUS in Heller, Canteno, and Bruen.

Is it an "ARMS" as defined by the Supreme Court? It most certainly is........STOP, the presumptive burden has now shifted to the Government to prove through actual founding era laws that similar Bans on such weapons were allowed at the time the Second Amendment was adopted.

Is it an Arm and is it in common use by law abiding citizens for any lawful purposes. Argument over and it doesn't matter if it is a rock (with 10 evil features) or a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

When they want to use terms like assault weapon we should insist they use the term ARMS and when they want to argue about something being extra killy or unnecessary we should simply say "In common use for lawful purposes."

 

[BurkeM]

and no one should be prohibited

Caveat;

Prisoners- in jail or prison- = prohibited.

Patients in mental institutions = prohibited.

Nobody else.

 

[Bertfish]

IF we use their words/ terms we have given them the benefit of fighting them within their premise. Which in my minds gets us distracted and fighting over what the word or term means and what gets included. When we should dismiss their entire premise from the start.

Part of the way the Left "wins" is by constantly changing the expectations of argument and them framing you as insensitive or uneducated because you can't or won't change with them. See the ever shifting LGBT terminology as a prime example. Or LatinX.

 

[eruby]

Caveat;

Prisoners- in jail or prison- = prohibited.

Patients in mental institutions = prohibited.

Nobody else.

Indeed

The contrapositive of 'if you're free to walk the streets, you're free to carry a gun'

 

[MattFinals718]

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.

Thanks. Have to admit that I'm still waiting for somebody to say, "This thread has been very informational to the other side."

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.

But here's the thing...what I am saying is not subjective. A subjective statement is something like, "I shoot better with this gun based on its caliber/bore axis/grip design/trigger pull/etc." An objective statement, on the other hand, is something like what I said earlier: My Steyr SPP is capable of firing more rapidly and more controllably than one of my Glocks in the same caliber, because that's what it was designed to do. It's able to be controlled because it uses a very different action than a Glock, and because it's a larger, heavier weapon. Legally, they're both Title I firearms and 9x19mm handguns, but functionally, they are quite different. I don't see how that's a subjective statement.

To your other examples - the fact that there's some logic to what our opponents are saying does not mean that they're right all the time. They're not firearms experts (mostly), so I do find some of the guns that they have succeeded in banning in some states (like MD) to be more questionable than others:

- Having shot both, I find an AR-15 to be a bit more controllable than a Mini-14, even though they're both semi-automatic rifles in the same caliber that can take detachable magazines. Much of that difference lies in the operating system, since an AR is direct-impingement and a Mini-14 uses a piston. The AR is also a more customizable design, though that's got as much to do with the market for them, than inherent design characteristics.
- On the other hand, I find it weird that MD's ban (and CA's, which inspired it) bans the Springfield M1A, but not the Mini-14. Any .308 battle rifle, by virtue of its caliber alone, will be far less controllable in rapid fire than a 5.56/.223 rifle. I'm not aware of many mass shootings carried out with M1As (or FALs, HK91s, etc.), but there have been more than a few with Mini-14s. So yes, I find it to be ridiculously and arbitrary that the Mini-14 is still GTG here, but the M1A is not.
- You do raise a good point RE the Franchi SPAS-12 vs. the Benelli M3 - I have no experience with either one, but it definitely seems arbitrary to me that MD bans the latter, but not the former (especially considering that the SPAS-12 has serious reliability and ergonomic issues compared to the M3). That definitely seems like a case of the gun controllers being more afraid of appearance than functionality. Personally, I don't think that any shotgun that feeds from a tube fits the M.O. of mass shooters - maybe drum mag shotguns (Street Sweepers, Saigas with drums, etc.), and even then, the recoil issue has to be considered.

Please note: This is my take on objective functional differences between these two weapons. Setting aside the 2A issues and engaging in thought experiments: I don't see how anyone would write legislation that would adequately address differences in how firearms operate that make some more suitable for rapid fire than others. It also seems stupid to even try when (big picture thinking) the weapons that gun controllers have deemed to be evil and wrong are not statistically the weapons involved in the majority of gun crimes or murders.

Part of the way the Left "wins" is by constantly changing the expectations of argument and them framing you as insensitive or uneducated because you can't or won't change with them. See the ever shifting LGBT terminology as a prime example. Or LatinX.

Agree. Problem is, we're playing that same game if we think we can define away the concept of "assault weapons." (Or at least, pretend all semi-automatic guns are the same based on user's intent.)

 

[Boats]

Thanks. Have to admit that I'm still waiting for somebody to say, "This thread has been very informational to the other side."



But here's the thing...what I am saying is not subjective. A subjective statement is something like, "I shoot better with this gun based on its caliber/bore axis/grip design/trigger pull/etc." An objective statement, on the other hand, is something like what I said earlier: My Steyr SPP is capable of firing more rapidly and more controllably than one of my Glocks in the same caliber, because that's what it was designed to do. It's able to be controlled because it uses a very different action than a Glock, and because it's a larger, heavier weapon. Legally, they're both Title I firearms and 9x19mm handguns, but functionally, they are quite different. I don't see how that's a subjective statement.

A subjective statement includes the word I and anecdotal evidence. An objective statement doesn't.

You shoot your steyr spp (a semi automatic version of a sub machine gun) faster and more accurately than any of your Glocks (a semi automatic handgun). That is subjective because it is based on your experience, your weapons, your training, and your abilities.

And objective statement would be based on eliminating all variables and comparing them based on mechanical facts.

To wit: The cyclic rate of the steyr spp and Glock is limited by how fast the shooter can pull the trigger, as is the case with most semi autos. In full auto versions (the TMP vs Glock 18) the Glock actually shoots much faster. (900rpm vs around 1400rpm). Both can mount optics (depending on which generation of Glock) both can take a vertical foregrip (don't, by the way, it's illegal) both can use extended capacity magazines. The Glock is more concealable, the SPP is larger and heavier. The Glock, statistically, is used in many, many more crimes than the SPP.

To your other examples - the fact that there's some logic to what our opponents are saying does not mean that they're right all the time. They're not firearms experts (mostly), so I do find some of the guns that they have succeeded in banning in some states (like MD) to be more questionable than others:

- Having shot both, I find an AR-15 to be a bit more controllable than a Mini-14, even though they're both semi-automatic rifles in the same caliber that can take detachable magazines. Much of that difference lies in the operating system, since an AR is direct-impingement and a Mini-14 uses a piston. The AR is also a more customizable design, though that's got as much to do with the market for them, than inherent design characteristics.
- On the other hand, I find it weird that MD's ban (and CA's, which inspired it) bans the Springfield M1A, but not the Mini-14. Any .308 battle rifle, by virtue of its caliber alone, will be far less controllable in rapid fire than a 5.56/.223 rifle. I'm not aware of many mass shootings carried out with M1As (or FALs, HK91s, etc.), but there have been more than a few with Mini-14s. So yes, I find it to be ridiculously and arbitrary that the Mini-14 is still GTG here, but the M1A is not.

Mass shootings is another subjective term. There is no set definition. I have seen some media articles define it as 2 or more victims (esp when they are trying to incite panic over how many "Mass shootings" there have been).

Statistically, there are more homicides with feet and fists every year than with ALL rifles This includes "Mass shootings" AND "assault weapons". It has been that way for the last 20 years.

And again, both the AR and the Mini-14 are magazine fed, semi-automatic, .223 rifles. You may shoot the AR better, but that is, again, subjective and irrelevant.

- You do raise a good point RE the Franchi SPAS-12 vs. the Benelli M3 - I have no experience with either one, but it definitely seems arbitrary to me that MD bans the latter, but not the former (especially considering that the SPAS-12 has serious reliability and ergonomic issues compared to the M3).

The spas is banned, the M3 isn't (you got former and latter mixed up) Both are tube fed semi automatic 12 gauge shotguns with a manual pump option and a 7-8ish round capacity. (again, objectively trying to eliminate as many variables as possible).

Yet the spas is widely considered an "assault weapon" while the Benelli is not. The Spas was even included as part of the federal assault weapon ban in the 90s, the Benelli was not.

That definitely seems like a case of the gun controllers being more afraid of appearance than functionality.

Now you're getting it.

Personally, I don't think that any shotgun that feeds from a tube fits the M.O. of mass shooters - maybe drum mag shotguns (Street Sweepers, Saigas with drums, etc.), and even then, the recoil issue has to be considered.

Please note: This is my take on objective functional differences between these two weapons. Setting aside the 2A issues and engaging in thought experiments: I don't see how anyone would write legislation that would adequately address differences in how firearms operate that make some more suitable for rapid fire than others. It also seems stupid to even try when (big picture thinking) the weapons that gun controllers have deemed to be evil and wrong are not statistically the weapons involved in the majority of gun crimes or murders.

Correct. Because the key word in gun control is control. Statistically, IF lowering the homicide and suicide rate was the goal (it isn't, see previous statement) then handguns would be banned, and/or the penalty for stealing a handgun would be a class 1 felony. (Based on the evidence that most suicides and homicides are with handguns, and most homicides are with stolen handguns).


The evidence suggests that gun bans of any type do not affect homicide rates. (homicide by firearm went UP during the 10 year federal AWB, for example. homicide by firearm has gone up since the NFA and GCA, for another). Based on that evidence, gun bans of all types should go away because they simply do not work AND the "gun control debate" should shift to a "mental health" debate, or a "personal responsibility" debate, or a "holding criminals accountable" debate, or a "raising children to have respect for others" debate, or a "let's stop tolerating sociopathic narcissistic behavior" debate

The POINT is that the term "assault weapon" is subjective. And also irrelevant, because there should not be a ban on ANY small arms, regardless of what they are called. Because bans don't work and "mass shootings" are statistical outliers. As others have said, this country has a people problem, not a gun problem.

 

[JohnnyE]

A subjective statement includes the word I and anecdotal evidence. An objective statement doesn't.

...

Mass shootings is another subjective term. There is no set definition. I have seen some media articles define it as 2 or more victims (esp when they are trying to incite panic over how many "Mass shootings" there have been).

...

This is the case when there is no observable tipping point. Look at the freezing temp of water; 32 degrees fahrenheit. This number is easy to point at, and debating whether it "should" be 31 or 33 is a fool's errand. OTOH, some states require you park at least ten feet from a fire hydrant, while others require 15 feet. Is one correct and the other wrong? Often times some number just ends up being selected even though it is inherently no more or less right or wrong than another.

 

[Ponder_MD]

Part of the way the Left "wins" is by constantly changing the expectations of argument and them framing you as insensitive or uneducated because you can't or won't change with them. See the ever shifting LGBT terminology as a prime example. Or LatinX.

This.

Also described as gaslighting and emotional blackmail combined with shifting goalposts.

 

[Atlasarmory]

Can I buy a PS90 yet

 

[Inigoes]

Can I buy a PS90 yet

Wait for it...

 

[Steel Hunter]

Can I buy a PS90 yet

*P90. Leave the S out of there.

 

[gtodave]

I wish we had a feature that would show only relevant content in threads like this where there's 5 pages of BS and two posts of good info about the case. Instead we have to sort through all the BS, and if someone asks "what's going on with case xyz" someone invariably answers "It's all in the thread. Just read it!".

It's not that simple, pal.

 

[Boats]

I wish we had a feature that would show only relevant content in threads like this where there's 5 pages of BS and two posts of good info about the case. Instead we have to sort through all the BS, and if someone asks "what's going on with case xyz" someone invariably answers "It's all in the thread. Just read it!".

It's not that simple, pal.

fair enough. sorry

 

[Bob A]

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

That's a very good argument! Never saw it before.