The only war I see here is the one between us and the anti's.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Maryland takes a pi** on the 2A
- Thread starter W.E.C
- Start date
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
We as gun owners are very, very disorganized, and are very bad at protesting. There should be a protest at the state house and a sit in on the state house floor, hallway etc.. But we all have jobs and obey the law and that works against us.
Go to 6:40 if you care to do so. He is right on the mark.
[video=youtube_share;mLj-PvU54sw]http://youtu.be/mLj-PvU54sw[/video]
Go to 6:40 if you care to do so. He is right on the mark.
[video=youtube_share;mLj-PvU54sw]http://youtu.be/mLj-PvU54sw[/video]
Last edited:
n1oty
NES Member
I read this quote from the article:
“Disenfranchising the American people on this life and death subject would be the gravest and most serious of steps,” Wilkinson wrote. “It is their community, not ours. It is their safety not ours. It is their lives, not ours.”
My immediate thought is that it is too bad the 9th circus didn't apply the same logic to Trump's EO. But it does show how the left will argue one way when it suits them and argue a completely different way in another case. We are no longer a nation of legal principles, rather everything is results driven.
“Disenfranchising the American people on this life and death subject would be the gravest and most serious of steps,” Wilkinson wrote. “It is their community, not ours. It is their safety not ours. It is their lives, not ours.”
My immediate thought is that it is too bad the 9th circus didn't apply the same logic to Trump's EO. But it does show how the left will argue one way when it suits them and argue a completely different way in another case. We are no longer a nation of legal principles, rather everything is results driven.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
I've been to the goal rally, the lobbying day event where I talked to both my senator and rep, I have written letters as well and signed petitions. I donate to goal and the NRA (I probably need to send some to Comm2A for all the amazing work they do), go to the friends of the NRA banquet and end up donating more. Exactly three years ago I did absolutely nothing because I didn't have an LTC and had no skin in the game. Now I see all the misinformation and outright lies that are spewed from the people who hate me. What else can I be doing? I look at it this way, I am at least another voice that a few years ago didn't exist, and to be honest I really think that we are becoming a lot better organized than we have in the past because of social media.
DPR
NES Member
My experience is similar. And the question of what else can we be doing needs some answers. I agree that social media is helping to keep people updated and organized but more can be done to educate non gun owners on the issues. If this is not done then they'll continue to learn about guns through the media or anti-gun politicians as they have been. I try to educate those within my circle (friends/family) but the "weapons of war" and "gun violence epidemic" rhetoric is almost non-stop.
scatter
NES Member
I lived there for 10 years. It is technically possible to get a carry permit (the law allows it), but it is practically impossible. You have to show "good and substantial reason" that you need one, like proof that your life has been legitimately threatened (multiple times as I recall but not positive on this) or you have to routinely transport large amounts of cash in the conduct of your business. Then they will CONSIDER your application, and even if issued it is only valid when you are in the situation you cited on the application. I never got one, needless to say.
Its too bad the anti justices on the scotus aren't older/closer to retirement. Getting this taken up by the court after they passed on the 7th circuit (if I recall correctly) doesn't give me much hope.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What wars have these weapons been used in? Can they get a garand in MD? That weapon could have been used in several wars.
I guess the "weapons of war" exception was inadvertently left out by those bumbling founders. I guess we'll need the "courts" to tells us the other stuff the founders forgot to put in.
I guess the "weapons of war" exception was inadvertently left out by those bumbling founders. I guess we'll need the "courts" to tells us the other stuff the founders forgot to put in.
yeah, logic isn't going to do squat shit. Libtards will keep coming up with more labels to push their agenda.
There should be price for these *******s. There is none now, it's a consequence free environment for libtards to infringe.
There should be price for these *******s. There is none now, it's a consequence free environment for libtards to infringe.
StevieP
NES Member
It truly is patently ridiculous that a Garand could be bought there, but an AR cannot.
Is it going to take "Everyone with an AR, to march with that AR on the National Mall" to get these idiots who've never even SEEN a semi-automatic rifle, from trying to ban them?
What's going to be the tipping point before these bans DO cause the next Civil War?
Is it going to take "Everyone with an AR, to march with that AR on the National Mall" to get these idiots who've never even SEEN a semi-automatic rifle, from trying to ban them?
What's going to be the tipping point before these bans DO cause the next Civil War?
pastera
NES Member
While reading the decision I found this interesting tidbit:
However a complete reading of that section of Heller reads quite differently:
The argument then offers that the meaning of the SCOTUS in this section was to argue that while the prefatory clause (militia) was a good fit to the operative clause (infringement) at the time of inception, the clause no longer fits because of the development of "bombers and tanks". They then argue that because the fit is no longer intimate, the clause has no meaning and military arms are no longer protected. However, the last sentence in that paragraph of Heller, "But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.", disproves the basis of their argument - SCOTUS clearly states that the fit doesn't matter and a poor fit of the prefatory clause does not change the right - the People have the right to bear arms and those arms encompass those that would be used in a militia.
The court further muddies its own waters by citing Caetano:
One cannot disconnect the proclamation that weapons not useful in war are also protected from the underlying assertion that weapons of war are protected in this statement by the SCOTUS.
Simply put, because Heller left them with no choice but to assume a minimum of intermediate scrutiny on any infringement, they simply chose to interpret Heller such that the subject at hand was excluded from protection whether or not it was supportable by evidence or case law.
Edit - I should have read the dissent before posting as it makes the same assertions I did in a much better manner.
However a complete reading of that section of Heller reads quite differently:
The argument then offers that the meaning of the SCOTUS in this section was to argue that while the prefatory clause (militia) was a good fit to the operative clause (infringement) at the time of inception, the clause no longer fits because of the development of "bombers and tanks". They then argue that because the fit is no longer intimate, the clause has no meaning and military arms are no longer protected. However, the last sentence in that paragraph of Heller, "But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.", disproves the basis of their argument - SCOTUS clearly states that the fit doesn't matter and a poor fit of the prefatory clause does not change the right - the People have the right to bear arms and those arms encompass those that would be used in a militia.
The court further muddies its own waters by citing Caetano:
Caetano said:
One cannot disconnect the proclamation that weapons not useful in war are also protected from the underlying assertion that weapons of war are protected in this statement by the SCOTUS.
Simply put, because Heller left them with no choice but to assume a minimum of intermediate scrutiny on any infringement, they simply chose to interpret Heller such that the subject at hand was excluded from protection whether or not it was supportable by evidence or case law.
Edit - I should have read the dissent before posting as it makes the same assertions I did in a much better manner.
Last edited:
ranger4-7
Army Veteran
I think that there is actually something very important and helpful to Massachusetts that came out of this travesty. If you do some searching, you'll see that back in 2013, when Maryland was debating this topic, they also got stuck on the concept of "copy cat" weapons. In fact, Maura's mentor, Martha Coakely, went to Maryland to take part in the debate. And guess what the state of Maryland settled upon for a defintion of what constitutes a copy-cat:
(D) “ASSAULT WEAPON” MEANS:
(1) AN ASSAULT LONG GUN;
(2) AN ASSAULT PISTOL; OR
a(3) A COPYCAT WEAPON.
(E) (1) “COPYCAT WEAPON” MEANS:
(I) A SEMIAUTOMATIC CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT CAN
ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS ANY TWO OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES
CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON;
2. A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
3. A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
4. 3. 2. A GRENADE LAUNCHER OR FLARE LAUNCHER;
OR
5. 4. 3. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR; OR
6. 5. A FORWARD PISTOL GRIP;
In the actual law, they eliminated pistol grip, thumb hole stock, telescoping stock and forward grip stock (the line-outs didn't carry over with the copy paste). The link to the approved version is here:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/chapters_noln/Ch_427_sb0281E.pdf
Yup, they finalized their law using the same working definition that the rest of the nation used from 1994 to 2004, and precisely what we all understood the definition to be up until 7/20/16. Specifically, in order for something that might look like an enumerated weapon to be an Assault weapon, it still has to have AT LEAST TWO of the banned features. That fact can not possibly help Maura in her case where she states that the features are not required, in order to be a copy-cat.
Chris
(D) “ASSAULT WEAPON” MEANS:
(1) AN ASSAULT LONG GUN;
(2) AN ASSAULT PISTOL; OR
a(3) A COPYCAT WEAPON.
(E) (1) “COPYCAT WEAPON” MEANS:
(I) A SEMIAUTOMATIC CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT CAN
ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS ANY TWO OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES
CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON;
2. A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
3. A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
4. 3. 2. A GRENADE LAUNCHER OR FLARE LAUNCHER;
OR
5. 4. 3. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR; OR
6. 5. A FORWARD PISTOL GRIP;
In the actual law, they eliminated pistol grip, thumb hole stock, telescoping stock and forward grip stock (the line-outs didn't carry over with the copy paste). The link to the approved version is here:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/chapters_noln/Ch_427_sb0281E.pdf
Yup, they finalized their law using the same working definition that the rest of the nation used from 1994 to 2004, and precisely what we all understood the definition to be up until 7/20/16. Specifically, in order for something that might look like an enumerated weapon to be an Assault weapon, it still has to have AT LEAST TWO of the banned features. That fact can not possibly help Maura in her case where she states that the features are not required, in order to be a copy-cat.
Chris
I'm kind of surprised this isn't getting more attention. This opens the door to ban anything, as anything could be used for military purposes.
Also, thread title is bad and I can understand why there would be dupe threads.
Also, thread title is bad and I can understand why there would be dupe threads.
MachineHead
NES Member
This issue is sure to make its way up to SCOTUS. It's time to settle this once and for the foreseeable future.
Hopefully Gorsuch isn't a FUDD.
Hopefully Gorsuch isn't a FUDD.
JGreen
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- Messages
- 1,887
- Likes
- 702
Consider hosting a gun primer in your town. Use the community room at your town hall. Keep it to gun safety and why we own guns. Give correct info on storage, possession and transportation. Do it every few months. Keeps the words "Gun" in the town newspaper/social media. Keep it factual and without politics. That's what you can do/be part of.
Yeah, but Roberts is a technocratic douche, and the Court has been rejecting 2A cases generally. My main hope for Trump's presidency is for him to replace Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer with originialists and then maybe - maybe - I can try to live the rest of my life out in peace.
And yeah, I know if that happens the Dems will be even pissier than they are now because they will have to change the world through legislation instead of judicial fiat.
The moral of the story is that court packing works, especially if you have enough SCOTUS justices to reject cases they are okay with.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 23,921
- Likes
- 30,049
In for a dd group buy when it comes up
Lip
Army Veteran
There some even amongst us. Frightening really
amm5061
NES Member
In as well.
Couple of NSFW words in this, but they're totally justified.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
