(Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess “weapons of war,” court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote, referring to the “military-style rifles” that were also used during mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, San Bernardino, California, and Orlando, Florida.
These are “places whose names have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there,” he wrote, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case excluded coverage of assault weapons.
The United States has among the most permissive gun rights in the world. Because the U.S. Congress has long been a graveyard for gun control legislation, some states and localities have enacted their own measures.
In total, seven states and the District of Columbia have laws that ban semiautomatic rifles, several of which that have faced various court challenges as there is a longstanding legal debate over the scope of Second Amendment rights.
Four appeal courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, King wrote.
In 2015, U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake upheld Maryland’s law that bans the AR-15 and other military-style rifles and shotguns and limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds, but a smaller panel of circuit court judges reversed her ruling in 2016. The case could be eventually be heard by the Supreme Court.
The majority “has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms,” Judge William Traxler wrote in the dissent of the ruling released on Tuesday.
(Reporting by Brendan O’Brien in Milwaukee; Editing by Nick Macfie)
…a citizen on Tuesday upheld his rights afforded by the Bill of Rights, and rejected this commie jew judges’ decision 1 to 14…”Didn’t give these rights to me and cannot take them away.” He said. “They can all go screw themselves sideways.”The citizen added.” I have my own appeals court, and it’s now in session.”
Judge Robert King lied. If he did not lie, then he is openly declaring that he is either a domestic enemy of the USA, or a traitor to our nation – I go with traitor since he is trying to unlawfully change our legitimate government.
He is Oathbound to the US Constitution and by breaking that contract, and by breaking the Oath – committing a felony and the crime of Perjury – for which he can be, and is lawfully required to be, removed from the position he is occupying. Remember that he is REQUIRED in writing to use only “good Behaviour” while in office. Good behavior is doing the duties as constitutionally and contractually assigned, taking and KEEPING the Oath(s) of Office.
Tench Coxe was VERY clear that it IS the “terrible implements of the soldier” that is the birthright of every American. That it is those who serve within our governments that “gun control” is upon, and why it is the people as the Militia who are REQUIRED in writing within the US Constitution to…
— Enforce the US Constitution (supreme Law) and each state’s Constitution (highest Law of the state),
— Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
— Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
— “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”
Tench Coxe, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. THEIR SWORDS AND EVERY TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER ARE THE BIRTHRIGHT OF AMERICANS. THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS BUT, WHERE I TRUST IN GOD IT WILL EVER REMAIN, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.” (notice that he used the word “implement” instead of naming weapons that can be used, that is because he understood that weapons would change with time and the American people need/needed to be trained to use, and have access to all weapons of war so that they could not be overpowered by traitors using our own military or mercs against us or by foreign invasions.)
Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”.
Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions – even concealed weapons bans – are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”
Nunn vs. State: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.
Andrews v. State explains, this “passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
“I go with traitor since he is trying to unlawfully change our legitimate government.”
CHANGE OUR LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT?????????????????????????
This is the SECOND TIME I’ve seen an utterly asinine statement coming from you in just the last few days.
ARE YOU A F%&ING IDIOT, OR WHAT???
WE HAVE NO LEGITIMATE ‘GOVERNMENT’, EVERY LAST ONE IS GUILTY OF HIGH TREASON!!!!!
“WE HAVE NO LEGITIMATE ‘GOVERNMENT’, EVERY LAST ONE IS GUILTY OF HIGH TREASON!!”
No, our government is NOT a person, it is the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution. They are not guilty of high treason, those that serve within them are.
That is the basic difference of our government when it is compared to other governments – it is in writing, it can be changed, but with great difficulty, and the 3 branches of it is 1) “we the People of the united states – and we have NOT been doing our duty, have we? 2) the states 3) the general government which most call the federal government.
To remove traitors, domestic enemies, judges, etc it take the Militia. We are the Militia. But to do it constitutionally, we must be trained as the congress requires the military to be trained (for obvious reasons), and knowledgeable about the US Constitution, and our own state’s Constitution (again obviously, because how can you enforce what you do not know or understand? How can you be Oath bound to support and defend it if you do not even know what you are supporting and defending?
Understand that the dangers the Militia of the several state raise to those who serve within our governments is well recognized. That is why they are made out to be “kooks”, etc who train. That is why the US Constitution and state Constitutions are treated as if they do not matter. Because if they are ever held by the people to the contracts and Oaths to which they are lawfully bound many will face prison, death sentences.
Understand that veterans can train the people properly and that is why vets are under attack.
Etc.
The Constitution (U.S., state or otherwise) is null & void. The CONTRACT has been broken and can only be fixed ONE WAY… through bloodshed (theirs).
The ONLY thing we trenchers will be fighting for is the BILL OF RIGHTS.
In other words… F%&K THE CONSTITUTION(S)!!!
maybe some one should sue him..not the court..him
This is what happens when there is no law.
This is what happens when We the People allow our common law to be stripped away from us.
This judge and the govt. of Maryland could outlaw all guns going all the way back to black powder muskets. Hey, those were used in a war weren’t they?
This judge and the Maryland govt. are in direct violation of Article 9 and Article 2 and should be shot like the traitors they are.
*** “Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote… ***
This judge is either a liar or an idiot. He may even be both.
There is no question that the right of citizens to keep and bear weapons of war is precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees. In his post above, Cal covered the Founders’ intent on this matter.
The RKBA also follows simply from the fact that no men have any inherent right to dominate other men. Unequal distribution of weapons such as firearms makes such domination possible and, as history shows, probable. Therefore, it’s unacceptable to ban effective weapons such as combat rifles.
Put simplyer, This government piece of shit has no power to extend or deny protection as the 2nd Article is beyond the scope of his authority. His ruling is irrelevant as he has no jurisdiction to make such a ruling, and in pretending he does is guilty of insurrection under color of law.
he can ask all he wants..My decision is to not comply
dont like that Mr King? ( he didnt write the Bill of Rights)
come and make me