|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Federal Court ruling: Mundanes have no right to possess ‘Weapons of War’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
For the first time, a federal court has explicitly ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of civilians to own firearms classified as “weapons of war.” In upholding Maryland’s ban on private sales and ownership of so-called assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decreed that they fell within the category of “weapons that are most useful in military service,” a phrase contained in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia decision. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(2/24/2017)
|
| The unamerican tyrants are on the march, they know what the 2A is all about but wish to control all peons! |
| Comment by:
dasing
(2/24/2017)
|
| The unamerican tyrants are on the march, they know what the 2A is all about but wish to control all peons! |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(2/24/2017)
|
What a horrible garbage-bin fire of a legal case.
"Mundanes have no right to possess ‘Weapons of War’ " REALLY? First of all, the "assault weapons" that are banned ARE NOT "weapons of war!!" They are SEMIautomatic clones of them. Second of all, the intent of America's founders was that the citizens would be as well-armed as the army.
Which actually WOULD MEAN that "weapons of war" would be most stongly protected -- IF we still believed in the Constitution. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
