Overturn marylans gun ban
- Thread starter c4snipar
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Vile Shadow
...
- Feb 28, 2013
- 28,953
This "Judge Catherine Blake" must have the IQ of a kumquat, making a comment like that.
The popular rifle in the country couldn't possibly be commonly possessed for lawful purposes, so it falls outside 2A protections because it's "dangerous and unusual".
The popular rifle in the country couldn't possibly be commonly possessed for lawful purposes, so it falls outside 2A protections because it's "dangerous and unusual".
brownspotz
Ultimate Member
- Oct 22, 2013
- 1,765
I enjoy the comments of "the other states should butt out of MD's problems" sad truth is that if they dont step in to help, this is whats going to happen to their states in the near future.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
This "Judge Catherine Blake" must have the IQ of a kumquat, making a comment like that.
The popular rifle in the country couldn't possibly be commonly possessed for lawful purposes, so it falls outside 2A protections because it's "dangerous and unusual".
Ill informed, biased anti? I read her opinion and can find no other support for her leap to that conclusion. I put her decision in the "it must be dangerous because its black and goes bang" category. She apparently doesn't realize a weapon is supposed to be dangerous by design. She probably figures rifles - as opposed to muskets - were equally unusual and dangerous in their day. I guess she allowed all the propaganda to overshadow informed objectivity. She's no Judge Legg.
abean4187
Ultimate Member
- Apr 16, 2013
- 1,327
All the antis are complaining about how Republicans aren’t respecting their “states rights” without acknowledging that this trial will have repercussions for the entire country depending on which way it goes. If this law gets upheld you better believe that the other district courts will use this trail as an example when they also allow similar laws to be declared constitutional.
5.56blaster
Ultimate Member
So all my cool stuff is used for unlawful purposes? I always wanted to be an outlaw! Just think I had the government approve me to be an outlaw! Lets start a gang! We could be the first outlaw gang that everyone in it was background checked and shown to be an honest citizen! Yippy! We live in such a great place where even an a$$hole can become a federal judge!
sar82007
Active Member
From my understanding we're waiting for another hearing referenced here: http://www.vice.com/read/how-courts-could-reverse-every-single-ban-on-assault-weapons-1120 By the way Vice News sounds antigun in this article.
Immersion
You have that power too
The way I see it is if a place such as Commiforniastan can make 2A progress, I see no reason why we shouldn't as well.
There's less legal pot here. And the surf isn't as good.
It amazes me how leftist continually maintain that the 2nd amendment is for hunting and self protection. Especially lawyers. They should be disbarred for stupidity. How did they pass the bar if they fail to grasp the foundational documents of our nation and legal system.
Cyndi59
Active Member
Mr.Raider..didn't you mean 2A is for keeping us un-hunted by thugs and you did bring up self protection..
Vile Shadow
...
- Feb 28, 2013
- 28,953
I just don't understand why folks would possibly feel the need to protect themselves from the beneficence of the gooberment. After all, they know what's best for us.
Mister Bisley
Member
Exactly. Nip it in the bud ASAP.
I'm with you guys. This reminds me of the quote that you can read by opening the link below. If the 21-states do not stand up for MD, there could be no one left to stand up for them with their 2A rights are targeted.
Cal68
http://hmd.org.uk/resources/poetry/first-they-came-pastor-martin-niemoller
ground chuck
Rookie Jedi
Why are they trying to tell me what I can and cannot use for home defense? If I want a semi-automatic ar-15, that choice should be protected.
Disagree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwhCqQ8hAl8
They also did a segment this summer where they shot a BUNCH of NFA stuff at a very big event, can't remember where.
Here's another: http://www.vice.com/video/sofex-the-business-of-war-full-length
We (people here) often confuse liberal with gun hating.
Home protection (protection of life and limb is paramount) is just one thing about it, and the choice of the weapon involved shouldn't matter.
However, wasn't there testimony elsewhere that indicated for example, that a .223 round in a AR-15 was actually a safer alternative to the venerable 9mm? A typical 9mm parabellum round will go through an attacker and possibly continue through walls and other things, posing a secondary danger to those close by. If I recall correctly, it was testified that the .223 will go into an attacker, and most likely will NOT go through additional walls, etc.
I think the AR-15 is an adequate choice for home protection, and so are any other firearms the defender is comfortable with, or those with which he/she chooses to use.
The point is, we have a right to bear arms, and out choice of arms should not be in question. Whether it is an AR or a shotgun or a pistol, we have the god-given right, as noted by the 2nd Amendment.
In this case, banning a firearm in common use (not many firearms are more commonly used) has been found to be unconstitutional, and judges should stop trying to find ways around that just because their personal opinions think firearms are bad.
Last edited:
shooter682
Active Member
Banning any fire arm should be unconstitutional.
True, but even unjust laws take time (and patience) to roll back piece by piece over time, as determined by individual cases.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
Convicted For Building Guns; Judge says, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom” (2 Viewers)- Started by Harrys
- Replies: 1
-
-
