Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I just finished reading the opinion, a task I always hate doing.
Legalize is not my native language.
However, this one wasn't too bad to understand.
The ruling didn't take away the gun owner's right to "Keep and Bear arms". It simply upheld the State of Maryland's "May Issue" policy. A policy I strongly disagree with and a policy I hope the voters of Maryland get changed.
Until the SCotUS rules that "May Issue" is unconstitutional, which is my personal belief, we will have to put up with the Liberal, anti-gun States that have it instead of "Shall Issue".
I believe that there are still only 8 States left that are "May Issue"; California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Mass, Delaware, and Maryland. Illinois will most likely also become a "May Issue" since they are being forced by the SCotUS to allow Conceal Carry.
Uhhhh.....The Illinois case hasn't even BEEN to the SCOTUS.
.
Three Scumbag Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Judges unbelievably Attempt to REVERSE the Supreme Court Ruling that the Right to Defend our lives is an individual right:
Albert Diaz - appointed by Obama
Andre M. Davis appointed by Obama
Robert Bruce King appointed by Slick Willy
OPINION
KING, Circuit Judge:
The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of
section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the
Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for
a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on
having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to
the entry of the courts injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement
that the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the
home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly
burdened by Marylands good-and-substantialreason
requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp.
2d 462 (D. Md. 2012). Because we disagree with the courts
conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement
cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment
without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second
Amendment.
.
This is why I have always said heller wasn't a second amendment victory. The inside the home was what the draw back was for me. You have a right to defend yourself inside your home but not on the outside? Now we have an example of how this ruling will be used against you. That's why I say Miller vs. U.S. is the only ruling that protects your right too keep and bear arms.
The unfortunate inclusion of the word MILITIA into the second amendment has always been THE POINT OF CONTENTION about the meaning that right.
Had the FFs NOT mentioned militia as the reason every citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, there could be NO DENYING what that amendment really meant.
But the amendment itself is written rather vaguely because of the word militia.
That right! We all have Collective Rights not individual rights.
Bravo 4th Circuit!
Well, don't congratulate them too heartily, they did after all defer to precedent:
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121437.P.pdfWe now know, in the wake of the Supreme Courts decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense. See 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). Heller, however, was principally concerned with the "core protection" of the Second Amendment: "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."
The so-called judges are such leftwingers that the district court's finding that Americans are free people with the UNALIENABLE right to defend their lives outside the home is a "Trailblazing pronouncement"
.
The unfortunate inclusion of the word MILITIA into the second amendment has always been THE POINT OF CONTENTION about the meaning that right.
Had the FFs NOT mentioned militia as the reason every citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, there could be NO DENYING what that amendment really meant.
But the amendment itself is written rather vaguely because of the word militia.
The unfortunate inclusion of the word MILITIA into the second amendment has always been THE POINT OF CONTENTION about the meaning that right.
Had the FFs NOT mentioned militia as the reason every citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, there could be NO DENYING what that amendment really meant.
But the amendment itself is written rather vaguely because of the word militia.
Bullshit.
The left would still challenge the amendment. There is no, not even a wisp, of ambiguity in the statement the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is crystal clear no matter how much people want to use the other parts of the sentence to obscure that little gem.
Clarity is NOT the problem. The ability to completely ignore reality in favor of ones dogma IS the problem and that is simply not going to go away.
Three Scumbag Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Judges unbelievably Attempt to REVERSE the Supreme Court Ruling that the Right to Defend our lives is an individual right:
Albert Diaz - appointed by Obama
Andre M. Davis appointed by Obama
Robert Bruce King appointed by Slick Willy
OPINION
KING, Circuit Judge:
The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of
section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the
Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for
a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on
having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to
the entry of the courts injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement
that the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the
home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly
burdened by Marylands good-and-substantialreason
requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp.
2d 462 (D. Md. 2012). Because we disagree with the courts
conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement
cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment
without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second
Amendment.
.
You are completely misreading the specifics.
(another rightwing hit job...)
yawn, nothing to see here
More bullshit.The unfortunate inclusion of the word MILITIA into the second amendment has always been THE POINT OF CONTENTION about the meaning that right.
Had the FFs NOT mentioned militia as the reason every citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, there could be NO DENYING what that amendment really meant.
But the amendment itself is written rather vaguely because of the word militia.
Bullshit.
The left would still challenge the amendment. There is no, not even a wisp, of ambiguity in the statement the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is crystal clear no matter how much people want to use the other parts of the sentence to obscure that little gem.
Clarity is NOT the problem. The ability to completely ignore reality in favor of ones dogma IS the problem and that is simply not going to go away.
And if you simply took it at face value then the government could not place any controls on any kind of "arms".
First off it say "arms", not guns. So we would have a Constitutional Right to buy any kind of WMD we wished.
Second of all no law could be passed preventing a 6 year old kid from carrying a gun since even children clearly have Constitutional Rights.
Once you agree that some limits are a good thing and should be placed it then becomes a matter of where to draw the line.
More bullshit.Bullshit.
The left would still challenge the amendment. There is no, not even a wisp, of ambiguity in the statement the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is crystal clear no matter how much people want to use the other parts of the sentence to obscure that little gem.
Clarity is NOT the problem. The ability to completely ignore reality in favor of ones dogma IS the problem and that is simply not going to go away.
And if you simply took it at face value then the government could not place any controls on any kind of "arms".
First off it say "arms", not guns. So we would have a Constitutional Right to buy any kind of WMD we wished.
Second of all no law could be passed preventing a 6 year old kid from carrying a gun since even children clearly have Constitutional Rights.
Once you agree that some limits are a good thing and should be placed it then becomes a matter of where to draw the line.
Arms are not WMDs. Period. Arms is not all that ambiguous either though it was in the best wisdom of the founders to not place a hard defined word like guns in the second. I believe that this was by design as 21st century weaponry was not known 200 years ago. Further, no right is completely without restrictions. That is not only a fact but accepted by everyone. You have the right to own a firearm but the government clearly restricts how they are manufactured, sold and carried. No one is demanding that all of those measures end.
Lastly, I dont actually believe there are age limits on firearm use so that part of your post is moot anyway. None of what you stated has any real connection with the point that I made and you quoted.
CATEGORY I
(1) Rifles and carbines using ammunition in excess of cal. 26.5, and their barrels;
(2) Machine guns, automatic rifles, and machine pistols of all calibers, and their barrels;
(3) Guns, howitzers, and mortars of all calibers, their mountings and barrels;
(4) Ammunition for the arms enumerated under (1) and (2) above, i.e., high-power steel-jacketed ammunition in excess of cal. 26.5; filled and unfilled projectiles and propellants with a web thickness of .015 inch or greater for the projectiles of the arms enumerated under (3), above;
(5) Grenades, bombs, torpedoes, and mines, filled or unfilled, and apparatus for their use or discharge;
(6) Tanks, military armored vehicles, and armored trains.
CATEGORY II
Vessels of war of all kinds, including aircraft carriers and submarines.
CATEGORY III
(1) Aircraft, assembled or dismantled, both heavier and lighter than air, which are designed, adapted, and intended for aerial combat by the use of machine guns or of artillery or for the carrying and dropping of bombs, or which are equipped with, or which by reason of design or construction are prepared for, any of the appliances referred to in paragraph (2), below;
(2) Aerial gun mounts and frames, bomb racks, torpedo carriers, and bomb or torpedo release mechanisms.
CATEGORY IV
Revolvers and automatic pistols of a weight in excess of 1 pound 6 ounces (630 grams), using ammunition in excess of cal. 16.5, and ammunition therefor.
CATEGORY V
(1) Aircraft assembled or dismantled, both heavier and lighter than air, other than those included in Category III;
(2) Propellers or air screws, fuselages, hulls, tail units, and under-carriage units;
(3) Aircraft engines.
CATEGORY VI
(1) Livens projectors and flame throwers;
(2) Mustard gas, lewisite, ethyldichlorarsine, and methyldichlorarsine
The so-called judges are such leftwingers that the district court's finding that Americans are free people with the UNALIENABLE right to defend their lives outside the home is a "Trailblazing pronouncement"
.
The Maryland legislature has declined to allow unrestricted carry outside the home, preferring instead to set standards for who can carry and who cannot. You seem to think that District Court should be able to overrule the legislature and effectively legislate from the bench.
Isn't that what the right likes to accuse liberal judges of doing?
The so-called judges are such leftwingers that the district court's finding that Americans are free people with the UNALIENABLE right to defend their lives outside the home is a "Trailblazing pronouncement"
.
The Maryland legislature has declined to allow unrestricted carry outside the home, preferring instead to set standards for who can carry and who cannot. You seem to think that District Court should be able to overrule the legislature and effectively legislate from the bench.
Isn't that what the right likes to accuse liberal judges of doing?
So you think the courts shouldn't get in the way of voter id laws that were passed by legislators or abortion control laws. Let's see how you try to wiggle out of this without coming off as a hypocrite.
"ARMS" are what you are basing your argument on?More bullshit.And if you simply took it at face value then the government could not place any controls on any kind of "arms".
First off it say "arms", not guns. So we would have a Constitutional Right to buy any kind of WMD we wished.
Second of all no law could be passed preventing a 6 year old kid from carrying a gun since even children clearly have Constitutional Rights.
Once you agree that some limits are a good thing and should be placed it then becomes a matter of where to draw the line.
Arms are not WMD’s. Period. Arms is not all that ambiguous either though it was in the best wisdom of the founders to not place a hard defined word like guns in the second. I believe that this was by design as 21st century weaponry was not known 200 years ago. Further, no right is completely without restrictions. That is not only a fact but accepted by everyone. You have the right to own a firearm but the government clearly restricts how they are manufactured, sold and carried. No one is demanding that all of those measures end.
Lastly, I don’t actually believe there are age limits on firearm use so that part of your post is moot anyway. None of what you stated has any real connection with the point that I made and you quoted.
Bullshit it's bullshit. The Constituion does not say guns or firearms. it says ARMS, period.
YOU said it was "There is no, not even a wisp, of ambiguity in the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms.’", didn't you? Are now backtracking from that statement?
Pretty straight forward, right?
The U.S. Congress defined ARMS......
CATEGORY I
(1) Rifles and carbines using ammunition in excess of cal. 26.5, and their barrels;
(2) Machine guns, automatic rifles, and machine pistols of all calibers, and their barrels;
(3) Guns, howitzers, and mortars of all calibers, their mountings and barrels;
(4) Ammunition for the arms enumerated under (1) and (2) above, i.e., high-power steel-jacketed ammunition in excess of cal. 26.5; filled and unfilled projectiles and propellants with a web thickness of .015 inch or greater for the projectiles of the arms enumerated under (3), above;
(5) Grenades, bombs, torpedoes, and mines, filled or unfilled, and apparatus for their use or discharge;
(6) Tanks, military armored vehicles, and armored trains.
CATEGORY II
Vessels of war of all kinds, including aircraft carriers and submarines.
CATEGORY III
(1) Aircraft, assembled or dismantled, both heavier and lighter than air, which are designed, adapted, and intended for aerial combat by the use of machine guns or of artillery or for the carrying and dropping of bombs, or which are equipped with, or which by reason of design or construction are prepared for, any of the appliances referred to in paragraph (2), below;
(2) Aerial gun mounts and frames, bomb racks, torpedo carriers, and bomb or torpedo release mechanisms.
CATEGORY IV
Revolvers and automatic pistols of a weight in excess of 1 pound 6 ounces (630 grams), using ammunition in excess of cal. 16.5, and ammunition therefor.
CATEGORY V
(1) Aircraft assembled or dismantled, both heavier and lighter than air, other than those included in Category III;
(2) Propellers or air screws, fuselages, hulls, tail units, and under-carriage units;
(3) Aircraft engines.
CATEGORY VI
(1) Livens projectors and flame throwers;
(2) Mustard gas, lewisite, ethyldichlorarsine, and methyldichlorarsine
Defining Arms, Ammunition and Implements of War under the Neutrality Legislation, 1934 - Wikisource, the free online library
Notice the words "Mustard Gas"? Isn't that considered a WMD????
"ARMS" are what you are basing your argument on?More bullshit.
Arms are not WMDs. Period. Arms is not all that ambiguous either though it was in the best wisdom of the founders to not place a hard defined word like guns in the second. I believe that this was by design as 21st century weaponry was not known 200 years ago. Further, no right is completely without restrictions. That is not only a fact but accepted by everyone. You have the right to own a firearm but the government clearly restricts how they are manufactured, sold and carried. No one is demanding that all of those measures end.
Lastly, I dont actually believe there are age limits on firearm use so that part of your post is moot anyway. None of what you stated has any real connection with the point that I made and you quoted.
Bullshit it's bullshit. The Constituion does not say guns or firearms. it says ARMS, period.
YOU said it was "There is no, not even a wisp, of ambiguity in the statement the right of the people to keep and bear arms.", didn't you? Are now backtracking from that statement?
Pretty straight forward, right?
The U.S. Congress defined ARMS......
CATEGORY I
(1) Rifles and carbines using ammunition in excess of cal. 26.5, and their barrels;
(2) Machine guns, automatic rifles, and machine pistols of all calibers, and their barrels;
(3) Guns, howitzers, and mortars of all calibers, their mountings and barrels;
(4) Ammunition for the arms enumerated under (1) and (2) above, i.e., high-power steel-jacketed ammunition in excess of cal. 26.5; filled and unfilled projectiles and propellants with a web thickness of .015 inch or greater for the projectiles of the arms enumerated under (3), above;
(5) Grenades, bombs, torpedoes, and mines, filled or unfilled, and apparatus for their use or discharge;
(6) Tanks, military armored vehicles, and armored trains.
CATEGORY II
Vessels of war of all kinds, including aircraft carriers and submarines.
CATEGORY III
(1) Aircraft, assembled or dismantled, both heavier and lighter than air, which are designed, adapted, and intended for aerial combat by the use of machine guns or of artillery or for the carrying and dropping of bombs, or which are equipped with, or which by reason of design or construction are prepared for, any of the appliances referred to in paragraph (2), below;
(2) Aerial gun mounts and frames, bomb racks, torpedo carriers, and bomb or torpedo release mechanisms.
CATEGORY IV
Revolvers and automatic pistols of a weight in excess of 1 pound 6 ounces (630 grams), using ammunition in excess of cal. 16.5, and ammunition therefor.
CATEGORY V
(1) Aircraft assembled or dismantled, both heavier and lighter than air, other than those included in Category III;
(2) Propellers or air screws, fuselages, hulls, tail units, and under-carriage units;
(3) Aircraft engines.
CATEGORY VI
(1) Livens projectors and flame throwers;
(2) Mustard gas, lewisite, ethyldichlorarsine, and methyldichlorarsine
Defining Arms, Ammunition and Implements of War under the Neutrality Legislation, 1934 - Wikisource, the free online library
Notice the words "Mustard Gas"? Isn't that considered a WMD????
You do realize that arms are the 18th century term for firearms?
Ever heard the term Stack of arms?
