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

fabsroman said:

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.

Click to expand...

I try to avoid arguing with imbeciles, though God knows it's hard to avoid.

I blame the public school system, and respect those who managed to learn to think despite such an impediment.

Boats said:

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

Click to expand...

Noted, I'll avoid using pronouns. But I also reserve the right to tell you that you're over-focusing on distractions, and not the things I've said that are objectively, well, objective...

Boats said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm basing my arguments on my experience (with two guns that I own and have fired), and yes, that means that I'm using anecdotes to illustrate my points. That doesn't discredit anything that I have said as "subjective." Don't we all base our observations about the way that the way the world works on personal experience to some extent?

You're also ignoring some of my other observations about the mechanical attributes of the weapons. So let me make a series of statements, and you can tell me what you regard as not objective and/or factual:

- The Steyr SPP and Glock 34 both meet the legal definitions of 9x19mm handguns in the U.S.
- The Steyr SPP is a semi-automatic-only version of a submachine gun (the Steyr TMP, later the B&T MP9), while the Glock 34 is a longer-slide version of the G17, developed as a semi-automatic service pistol (though it has a machine pistol variation, the G18).
- Since the SPP's design lineage is that of an SMG, its action is very different than that of the G34. Specifically, it is (like the TMP) a delayed blowback, closed-bolt firearm, in which all of the moving parts are encased in the receiver.
- The SPP also features a rotating barrel, which has the effect of keeping the action locked upon firing, and also delays the opening. This has the effect of reducing the recoil impulse on both the TMP and the SPP; on the TMP, it also limits the cyclic rate (800-900 RPM).
- By comparison, a Glock 18 - which is based on the Glock 17 (again, same action as my G34) - is mechanically a much simpler pistol, since it uses a slide, not a bolt and rotating barrel. As you note, it has a higher cyclic rate than a TMP because of its design.
- Also: It goes without saying that being a larger, heavier weapon, the TMP and SPP will be more controllable than any Glock. This is also (generally speaking) the reason that subguns and "assault pistols" like the Uzi, MAC, etc. are more controllable than Glocks in rapid-fire (though the SPP is lighter than them, due to use of composites - it uses its rotating barrel design to reduce felt recoil, versus weight alone).

(Please note: I'm getting most of the info on the TMP from an old 1993 magazine article, though I am also - again - considering my own observations of my personally-owned firearm.)

You're also making another strawman argument: When I say that the goal of a mass shooter is to fire a lot of rounds quickly, I'm not saying that cyclic rate is king (which isn't applicable when we're talking about semi-autos, anyway). It would seem to me that objectively speaking, a higher cyclic rate is not necessarily an advantage if it's too high and sacrifices controllability.

To your point about controlling for variables: We can observe (based on data) that most mass shooters are untrained, incompetent individuals - that also seems like common sense because socially and intellectually competent people tend not to be the individuals that go on mass shooting sprees to begin with. So yes, while every individual is different, and has different abilities, it seems pretty clear that the scenario we're considering is how effective an untrained individual (lowest baseline) would be, if their motive was to inflict multiple casualties in a short time using Title I firearms that are most likely to be available to them in the U.S.

Boats said:

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).

Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't like the definition that is now becoming common and over-used in the mainstream media. We are clearly seeing far too many incidents that seem like run-of-the-mill gang violence being treated as "mass shootings."

Here's another thought experiment for you: Perhaps what matters in the definition is not the number of victims alone, but rather, the shooter's intent. That's how you'd distinguish between somebody like that it/they person (whatever their pronouns were) in Nashville going on a killing spree at a school, vs. some gangbanger in Baltimore who goes after one of his rivals using a Glock with an auto switch and just happens to smoke three innocent bystanders as collateral damage.

Boats said:

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.

Click to expand...

Cool, I don't disagree that assault rifles, like all rifles, are statistically very uncommon in all crime, and always have been.

But you'll note that in this statement, you're conflating "assault rifles" and "assault weapons," as if that (admittedly flawed) description does not encompass what the gun controllers call "assault pistols" (e.g., weapons like my Steyr SPP). Not saying that "assault pistols" are used in the majority of homicides, either - but I imagine that they're at least more common than "assault rifles," if we're comparing sub-categories of "assault weapons."

Boats said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not really, for the reasons I mentioned. Anyway: Legally, I'm not arguing that I see a strong basis to treat the Mini-14 differently than the AR-15. Just that there are visible, functional differences between the two weapons that mean most shooters, controlling for all variables, will find the AR to be a more controllable weapon.

Or at least, how else do you account for the popularity of the AR over the Mini-14?

Boats said:

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.

Now you're getting it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I made a mistake, based on typing my last post late at night (with my wife nagging me to do the dishes ). But again, let's not get distracted and ignore the most salient points here.

Again: I don't deny that I find the gun controllers' logic to be questionable in some instances, and shotguns are a good example. If their goal is to go after the weapons that are most useful to mass shooters (ill-conceived and unconstitutional as that may be), i.e., those that can fire many rounds in a short amount of time, then going after almost any tube-fed, semi-auto shotgun is inconsistent with their own logic. I chalk this inconsistency up to the fact that the legislative staffers who write these bans are not weapons experts. (That is my impression of how FSA 2013 is so arbitrary.)

Boats said:

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).

Click to expand...

Agree with this statement. I should point out that while banning handguns is no longer commonly advocated in the mainstream of the gun control movement, it is still the position of the VPC.

The focus on "assault weapons" is driven specifically as a response to mass shootings, which tend to provoke a disproportionate amount of outrage because (1.) it is easier for the public to regard them as something that "could happen to us" (as opposed to gang-related shootings in the ghettos, which seem like someone else's problem), and (2.) the shooters go for areas that symbolize normal life (schools, churches, sporting events, etc.), because they want to shatter our perception of "normalcy" and make us take note that we could be the next victims of losers like themselves. From the gun controllers' perspective: It is easier to focus on these shootings, and the guns that are (often) used in them, because it is easier to generate support for their cause.

Boats said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nobody's arguing for bans on anything here. I own six weapons that Wes Moore probably would take away from me if he could. I have no desire to ban my own firearms.

But no, the term "assault weapon" is not entirely subjective. Like I said, think of it this way: Sometimes our opponents are wrong, but for the right reasons.

MattFinals718 said:

Or at least, how else do you account for the popularity of the AR over the Mini-14?

Click to expand...

( Legitimately among gun people )
It's more modular
It's potentially more adjustable . if your family members range from 6' 4" to 4' 10"
In recent years the economics have flipped upside down

( Hypothetical inexperienced , untrained , non gun people)

They look cool
Conditioned by mass media , entertainment, and popular culture that AR are evil, wicked, mean , and nasty , and Extra Killy .

***************

A Mini- 14 is actually more natural and intuitive for newbie to make hits . Hand and arm positions more natural and intuitive . Closer relationship between line of sight and bore line ( impact) . Overall , closer the hands , bore , and eyes , the better and quicker to hit where you're looking . ( Not talking 300 yd group sizes , but making hits on life size targets , usually ducking and scrambling , at distances typical for such events .)


For non skilled shooters , any type of handgun , totally sucks compared to virtually any shoulder fired weapon beyond tobacco spitting distance , if not bad breath distance .. ( Disregarding " arm braces " to make ersatz SBR , in which case they are worse than typical rifles of a certain style , see above )

IF the hypothetical anti spcial ne'er do well has or sets out to gain a minimal modicum of handgun skill ( let's say equivalent to a passing score on Md W&C Qual ) , they will be able to make far more Hits with a " regular normal " pistol vs ( something I won't even give their own name , adapted from various other things that you know what I mean ) ..


Shouldered , hands , or from the hip - If I were somehow in the wrong place at the wrong time , it would be far better for me ( and any fellow bystanders ) for a Malfactor to be spraying with visually scary whatever , instead of old school guns , aiming & squeezing .

So any news about the case?

Not yet .

I took a couple of colleagues from work to the range this past weekend. One of them was completely new to firearms and had never shot any type of firearm before. The other had some experience with handguns but had never shot an AR style firearm before. Along with a couple of handguns for my rookie friend, I also took two AR-15's along. Both my friends loved shooting them, especially the Sig Sauer MCX-Spear. They loved it even better when I had them shoot the Sig with an Omega 36M suppressor attached to it. My rookie friend was so taken up that he told me he will apply for his HQP right away! He kept telling me that it was a fantastic experience and that he could very easily see it being a "great hobby".

The point I am trying to make is that the folks who would take AR-15's away from law abiding people like us do not seem to recognize that the vast majority of us will never fire one except on a range or when hunting. I hope I never have to use one to defend myself, but I will be prepared if the SHTF.

Cal68

INMY01TA said:

So any news about the case?

Click to expand...

Shhhh...We don't talk about that here.

E.Shell said:

Shhhh...We don't talk about that here.

Click to expand...

Great now it will be ANOTHER 2 weeks.

Bob A said:

I try to avoid arguing with imbeciles, though God knows it's hard to avoid.

I blame the public school system, and respect those who managed to learn to think despite such an impediment.

Click to expand...

Regarding your first sentence, that's a good policy. Your time is too precious for that, unless you sense you may make some headway with them.

Regarding your second sentence, I beg to differ in the sense that parents share in the blame. I was educated in one of, if not the top, school systems in the U.S. 98% of my high school graduating class went off to four-year colleges. We had many National Merit Scholar finalists and winners, etc., and STILL, there were the screwups and criminals and to a person they had screwed up family lives.

Unless the successful families who self-selected to this well-to-do area brought along superior DNA that they passed to their kids, really the only two things that cause this group of kids to stand above the rest is good schools AND families who made education a priority via a hands on approach to their kids' education. Feral children, even with the best schools, will likely grow up to be a mess.

INMY01TA said:

So any news about the case?

Click to expand...

According to this article the ban was upheld today. I can't find any other corroborating stories

newmuzzleloader said:

According to this article the ban was upheld today. I can't find any other corroborating stories

Fourth Circuit Upholds Maryland Assault Weapons Ban: AR-15s Not Covered Under Second Amendment

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban, reinforcing the notion that AR-15s, characterized as ‘weapons of war,’ are not protected under the S…

trendydigests.com

Click to expand...

I did some quick Google-fu and couldn't find anything else. You'd think that this would garner a pretty big news push if it was real.

newmuzzleloader said:

According to this article the ban was upheld today. I can't find any other corroborating stories

Fourth Circuit Upholds Maryland Assault Weapons Ban: AR-15s Not Covered Under Second Amendment

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban, reinforcing the notion that AR-15s, characterized as ‘weapons of war,’ are not protected under the S…

trendydigests.com

Click to expand...

That article is all over the map discussing previous court arguments, and not to mention Colin Noir talking about the 7CA assault weapons ban, which further clouds the article.

I am thinking the author was trying to give a history lesson, while mixing in current events. The author did a very poor job trying to convey the historical information.

trickg said:

I did some quick Google-fu and couldn't find anything else. You'd think that this would garner a pretty big news push if it was real.

Click to expand...

Plus the En Banc hearing is scheduled in March, right? So no decision yet. Fake news haha

The whole point of going en banc was to continue the delaying game; no way they came out with a decision this quickly.

Probably couldn't reach a decision to leave the courthouse if it was on fire in less than two years

how else do you account for the popularity of the AR over the Mini-14?

Cost and availability.

newmuzzleloader said:

According to this article the ban was upheld today. I can't find any other corroborating stories

Click to expand...

Wrong on so many points.

En Banc hearing is still scheduled for March 20

Thread turned dildos. All gun laws are unconstitutional. There should be no legal definition of "Assault weapon" because any gun tossed in this nebulous category is an arm protected by the 2a. "Assault weapon" only exists as a political/legal term in order to infringe on 2a protected rights, so the term itself lacks all validity. "Assault rifles" ARE a thing, named for a specific military purpose.

smokey said:

Thread turned dildos. All gun laws are unconstitutional. There should be no legal definition of "Assault weapon" because any gun tossed in this nebulous category is an arm protected by the 2a. "Assault weapon" only exists as a political/legal term in order to infringe on 2a protected rights, so the term itself lacks all validity. "Assault rifles" ARE a thing, named for a specific military purpose.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear!!

BurkeM said:

Wrong on so many points.

En Banc hearing is still scheduled for March 20

MarylandAWban.com: Bianchi v. Brown - FPC Law 2A Challenge to Maryland's "Assault Weapons" Ban

MarylandAWban.com: Bianchi v. Brown is a FPC Law 2A lawsuit that seeks to strike down Maryland’s “assault weapons" ban

www.firearmspolicy.org

Click to expand...

Yup. In summary of case for those not following as closely:
4th Circuit En Banc hearing is March 20th
Also while we are waiting, a petition for Writ of Certiorari (No. 23-863) has been filed with SCOTUS in attempt to force 4th Circuit to do something. The idea is that if 4th Circuit doesn't issue an opinion after En Banc inevitably does nothing, the case has possibility of being taken back up by SCOTUS for the 2nd time. The petition was formally docketed 02/12/24. It may or may not be distributed for conference. My guess is SCOTUS won't touch it unless they need to following En Banc decision.

newmuzzleloader said:

According to this article the ban was upheld today. I can't find any other corroborating stories

Fourth Circuit Upholds Maryland Assault Weapons Ban: AR-15s Not Covered Under Second Amendment

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban, reinforcing the notion that AR-15s, characterized as ‘weapons of war,’ are not protected under the S…

trendydigests.com

Click to expand...

AI news source that scours the internet and then make a news article. There have been a bunch of them pop up lately.