Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Federal appeals court finds that the right to own military style weapons is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Let the outrage begin!

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a Maryland ban on assault-style rifles and large-capacity magazines isn’t subject to the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms. 

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, reconsidered a divided ruling issued last year that found citizens have a “fundamental right” to own these weapons, and that laws restricting the right deserve the toughest level of constitutional scrutiny. 

Writing for a nine-judge majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King said that weapons such as M-16s and the kind that “are most useful in military service” aren’t protected by the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision. That ruling limited the right to ownership of handguns for self-defense within the home. 

“Put simply,” King wrote, “we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.” 

The court separately rejected claims that Maryland’s assault weapons ban violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Oh the NRA is definitely going to lose it's shit over this!

Should be fun to watch.

46 comments:

  1. Let me just say that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is not a liberal court. I'm actually pretty amazed by this considering the court that decided it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12:11 PM

    Oh oh, is that a crack in the NRA?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12:13 PM

    The 2nd amendment only applied to individuals in connection to their military service in an American army in defense of America. This should be a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, yet, Scalia is probably rolling in his grave, go figure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:23 PM

      Wrong. So wrong.

      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      The important part:

      "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed, and it is protected by the constitution, not per your incorrect self serving interpretation.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:36 PM

      There is a huge difference between a well regulated militia and the people... the key word is regulated!

      Delete
    3. Anonymous12:53 PM

      12:23
      Hey!
      Touchy! Touchy!
      Nobody said you cannot keep your muskets.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous1:28 PM

      @12:23 No you are interpreting for your self-serving needs, So wrong.

      No the important part is "A well regulated Militia.

      People can only bear arms if they are part of the well-regulated Militia.

      So Sad you can’t interpret the Constitution correctly. Really Sad
      But guess what trump isn’t coming for your muskets.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous1:44 PM

      @ 12:23, yeah, well, Congress isn't supposed to limit free speech, assembly and religion, and yet they do all three, all the fucking time.

      So, in other words, bite me, and shove your second amendment obsession where the gun doesn't shine.

      I sincerely doubt that Thomas Jefferson would have wanted people with psychiatric issues and with terroristic intent to be able to accumulate an arsenal, and yet that is what you nutty nut ball gun people facilitate. Literally -- L I T E R A L L Y -- Osama Bin Laden could have walked into any Walmart and bought as many guns as he would have liked, and thanks to assholes like you, it would have been totally legal.

      "A well regulated Militia" and "to the security of a free State" are key parts, you knuckle-dragging nitwit. They fucking thought they were going to get invaded by the British again, or the French. They weren't thinking about dummies with male insecurities who sought out firearms powerful enough to shred a deer because they needed reassurance that their genitals weren't too small.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous1:47 PM

      Wrong again 1:28. Don't believe me, fine, but the supreme court has also sided with the correct understanding and interpretation that the right of the people, is the right of the individuals, to keep and bear arms.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous2:17 PM

      Hey, nitpicker at 12:23. Bullshit. That right is protected ONLY because in 1776, the only army was the militia, and the military weapons and the average weapon were one and the same. Muzzleloaders that took a ton of practice to use. Today's point and shoot technologies and uber sophisticated, powerful weaponry has no relationship to that era. Hint: you can't own a bazooka today. But hey, you want a constitutional right to own a single shot muzzle loader - done.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous2:31 PM

      The first part of the sentence refers to a well regulated militia. That's a clue to what's important. Both phrases that follow relate to such a militia. The right of the people, IN THE CONTEXT OF A MILITIA, shall not be infringed.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous2:33 PM

      1:47, you are welcome to a musket, which is all the founding fathers had envisioned. original intent and all.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous2:39 PM

      Bush v Gore and Citizens United are proof that the Supreme Court makes poor judgments from time to time.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous6:41 PM

      Ha, well you are certainly wrong about that 2:33, there is no mention of "muskets". It states the right to keep and bear arms, and as time and technology has progresses, "arms" has also technologically progressed, and good citizens own them. Essentially your musket argument is totally stupid, like yourself.

      And 2:31, the sentence as written, understands the need to have the ability to form a militia, and in that regards, understands that people rights to keep and bear arms is a prerequisite to that. As such it states... in order to do one thing, the prerequisite (right to bear arms) shall not be infringed. It is the correct way, and the supreme court has agreed. It is a done deal. This country is never giving up that right. Get used to it.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous12:34 PM

    It will be ironic if the Trump Years are the ones that take the guns and ammo from people; after all the conspiracy theories re: Obama

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous1:21 PM

      I would think Trump will go down once he tries to take away guns throughout the country.

      Americans are so going to wish that President Obama could have served another term. We miss him already!

      Delete
    2. Trump has every reason to fear assassination.

      And it will come from the right, because of the masses of fear and stockpiled guns and ammo the NRA has been pushing for decades.

      It will be one of his own crazies that will take him out. And it will be a licensed and legally bought and owned firearm that does it.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous12:36 PM

    "being necessary to the security of a free State"

    Seems you forgot that part.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous12:56 PM

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

    You gun loons always forget the first part. We have had standing armies for over 200 years, that we supply weapons to. No need for individuals to make up a militia. or have a right to arms to be a member of the services.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous1:51 PM

      "No need..... "

      Very shortsighted, thankfully those who wrote the Constitution and Amendments weren't as shortsighted as the modern day liberals who feel they can pick and choose Constitutional rights and laws based on feelings.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2:19 PM

      Not to mention, the free flow of guns imperils a free state because of the crime and violence they enable.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous2:35 PM

      1:51, then enjoy your musket, which is all the Constitution allows. It doesn't matter if you feel you're entitled to military grade weapons. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant

      Delete
    4. Anonymous3:30 PM

      I'm afraid for you 2:35, that the constitution makes no mention of only muskets being allowed lol. That may be your wish or desire, but it certainly holds no water.

      In fact the reality is that since this has been written to protect people and a free state, that individuals would require modern day technologies, in order to ensure that they could equally be able to protect themselves from threats, domestic or foreign utilizing modern technology.

      Muskets lol.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous6:27 PM

      It is always amusing when the gun hating liberals like 2:35, always trying to take away peoples rights, expose themselves as being completely ignorant as to the very subject they are talking about.

      You say "entitled to military grade weapons" 2:35?

      Guess what dippy, your average citizen is not entitled to nor can they legally own 'military grade weapons'. So your argument is, well, stupid.

      Delete
  7. OFF-TOPIC COMMENT:

    SWEET THING AND I ARE MOVING TO HOMER, ALASKA:

    http://mustreadalaska.com/homer-city-council-goes-full-resist-trump-mode-resolution/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous1:19 PM

      Good for them! Wish other councils/assemblies were as smart throughout Alaska.

      Always have loved visiting Homer throughout the years!

      Delete
  8. Anonymous1:06 PM

    According to the "Originalist" theory of understanding the constitution, we have to consider what the founders understood. They certainly did not know about AR-15 weapons so clearly they didn't consider them in their definition of arms. Therefore, I guess they're not covered under the second amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1:50 PM

    --Trump-Russia: Senate Intel Committee goes after Michael Flynn and Donald Trump’s tax returns

    Republican Senator sides with Democrats, giving them control of committee

    Now we know why the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee seemed so quietly satisfied after their committee’s secret basement meeting on Friday afternoon. Based on her words today, it appears that Republican Senator Susan Collins has sided with the Democrats to give them a majority within the committee, forcing a serious investigation into Donald Trump and Russia. And Collins is now publicly laying out her next steps in the investigation.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee currently consists of eight Republicans and seven Democrats (technically six Democrats and one Independent, Angus King, who routinely votes with the Democrats). All it would take for the Democrats to assume de facto control of the committee with regard to Trump-Russia is for one Republican member to side with them. And it appears Susan Collins is that Republican.

    Collins is now publicly demanding that recently resigned National Security Adviser Michael T. Flynn testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee with regard to what he knows about Donald Trump and Russia. Collins also said today (as reported by Politico) that she and her committee will subpoena Trump’s tax returns “if it’s necessary to get to the answers” on what his connections are to Russia. The public demands now coming from Collins are essentially identical to what the Democrats on the Senate Intel Committee have been publicly calling for all along, suggesting she’s taken their side, giving them control of the committee. And that’s not the only Senate committee where things are now firmly underway...

    https://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/trump-russia-senate-intel-committee-goes-michael-flynn-donald-trumps-tax-returns/1631/

    --I told you the Trump Russia intel leaks would go silent this week – and it’s a sign of progress

    Here’s why we’ve entered the no-talk all-action phase of the investigation

    After a fast paced sequence of events over the weekend which involved everything from a secret meeting between the Senate Intelligence Committee and James Comey in the Senate basement, to a Reuters revelation that the FBI was investigating front companies financially connecting Donald Trump to Russia, I predicted on Sunday night that “things may strategically get quiet for a bit.” Sure enough, this week we’ve seen no new intel leaks, and not a squawk from the Senate Intel Committee. But as I said at the time, this means good news for the investigation.

    After the Democrats on the Senate Intel Committee left their meeting with Comey on Friday night, they skipped their usual round of complaining to the media about a lack of action from Comey and the Republicans. This a fairly clear sign that, for the first time, the Democrats on the committee were satisfied with what they heard from Comey, and that they were satisfied with the actions of their Republican counterparts on the committee. That left no reason for the Democrats to continue publicly badgering their counterparts over Trump-Russia. And if the Republicans on the committee are now cooperating, as it appears they are, the last thing the Democrats want to do is make it look partisan.

    Accordingly, the point of the intel community leaking Trump-Russia details to the media was to turn the public against Trump, and drive his approval rating so low that people like Comey and the Senate Republicans would feel pressured to get on board with the investigation – if only to protect their own political futures...

    https://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/told-trump-russia-intel-leaks-go-silent-bit-heres/1630/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:24 PM

      One Republican Would Subpoena Trump’s Taxes If Russia Probe Goes There

      Sen. Susan Collins said the Intelligence Committee would seek the president’s withheld tax returns if it is necessary to find any Russian connections.

      ...Collins, who is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she will call for Flynn to testify before the committee, as other members are also expected to demand.

      She pledged that the committee’s ongoing investigation would find out whether the Russian campaign of hacking and fake news propagation actually swayed the election, and whether Flynn or anyone else was involved.

      Asked whether that could include issuing a subpoena for the tax returns that Trump has refused to release, Collins said it could if that is what is required to find out if the president had undisclosed connections to the Russians.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/susan-collins-republican-subpoena-trump-taxes-michael-flynn-probe_us_58addfb1e4b04a0b274f3d67?hajs0juj0g22o6r&

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2:26 PM

      Subpoena his taxes.

      I predicted early on that Trump would never, ever, under any condition, reveal his tax returns. His whole psychological edifice is based on his brand. Let’s face it: what kind of moron sues for defamation because someone says his net worth is not X? (During the deposition in that case, Trump claimed his “brand’s value” was “based on how he was feeling that day”).

      His tax returns would reveal the truth. Resigning the presidency “on principle”, as he would spin it, is far less of an existential threat to his psyche than for the world to discover the narcissist’s true net worth.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/getting-rid-of-trump-easy-neither-impeachment-nor_us_58aa697ae4b0b0e1e0e20d2e

      Delete
  10. Anonymous1:55 PM

    A New Poll Shows That A Perfect Storm Is Building For Trump Impeachment

    A new Quinnipiac University poll shows that many of the factors that are necessary for the American public to support impeaching a president a now present in Donald Trump's poll numbers.

    ...The one element that is missing from the impeachment equation is a scandal with a smoking gun. Congress is getting more and more interested in the question of Trump’s potential collusion with Russia.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/22/poll-shows-perfect-storm-building-trump-impeachment.html

    Hillary Clinton Tells Republicans To Get Out Of Congress If They Can’t Take The Heat

    Hillary Clinton had a message for Republicans in Congress. Clinton linked to an editorial about Republicans canceling town halls and wrote above it that if Republicans can't stand the heat, they need to get out of Congress.

    ...Clinton linked to a Kansas City Star editorial that called out local Republicans for avoiding town halls, “But members of Congress signed up for this when they ran for office. They were elected to serve. And not just to adoring crowds, kissing cute babies and shaking the hands of veterans for touching photo ops. Representing the people means showing up, even when the exchange may not be among friends.”

    The 2016 Democratic nominee is 100% correct. Clinton was a Senator. She understands the responsibilities of members of Congress. Those who are elected to serve don’t get to pick and choose who they are going to speak to. Members of Congress don’t get to dictate the terms for their town halls.

    The problem that Republicans are facing is that the first time since they won the majority that they have faced any heat from their constituents. Republicans in Congress had it easy during the Obama years. They could criticize and oppose everything, but now that they are the majority with a Republican president, their actions matter, and the public is ready to hold them accountable.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/22/hillary-clinton-tells-republicans-congress-heat.html

    Mitch McConnell Spits On Democracy By Hiding From Protesters In Kentucky

    Protesters were waiting for Mitch McConnell outside of the Jeffersontown Chamber of Commerce luncheon, so Sen. McConnell showed his true colors by hiding from the protesters by sneaking into the building through a hotel back door.

    ...A true leader doesn’t sneak in through the back door. Real leaders don’t hide when they are faced with protesters. Sen. McConnell is in hiding because he knows that the Trump/GOP agenda is very unpopular. He can’t defend it, so he is running away from those who want to confront him.

    Republicans can’t run away from the rage of the American people.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/22/mitch-mcconnell-spits-democracy-hiding-protesters-kentucky.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:59 PM

      They should show up at their homes!!!!
      Staying on public property of course.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous1:57 PM

    --Why is POTUS claiming townhall #resistance is fake protest? Because #resistance undermines Congress willingness to support him. #persist

    --Kelleyanne can't figure out how to fill her time. W/o anything to do she turns into the toddler who wants to "help" you cook dinner.

    https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous2:17 PM

    Former Aides Explain How They Shielded Trump From Twitter Destruction

    ...Here’s how they did it. Aided immeasurably by the fact that Trump never reads anything online and literally only consumes media that is printed and put in front of him, staffers would engineer “good news” stories with a universe of friendly media outlets.

    So, for instance: When Trump was regularly fighting with Khizr Khan, the father of a slain Iraq War soldier who made a huge splash at the Democratic National Convention, his staff would set up a meeting with other Gold Star families, get friendly media outlets to run the stories, and then show Trump those stories so that he didn’t feel so sad and angry. They’d also get “media amplifiers” to tweet about these stories so the staffers could print out tweets to show Trump, to calm him down.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-twitter_us_58ade36be4b03d80af71bdef?96lkhzc1h6fbyy14i&

    Terrifying that he is the so-called president. OMG.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:59 PM

      Well isn't that special, little donnie has babysitters !!!

      Delete
  13. Anonymous2:32 PM

    ‘Leaving him alone can prove damaging’: Staffers warn Trump needs constant praise and limit on TV

    Staffers from Donald Trump’s presidential campaign have reportedly warned that too much TV could be dangerous for the president.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-twitter-staffer-235263

    ‘LEAVE HIM’: Twitter reacts to video that seems to show Melania Trump flinching at her husband’s touch

    http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/leave-him-twitter-reacts-to-video-that-seems-to-show-melania-trump-flinching-at-her-husbands-touch/

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous2:46 PM

    Grandmother who blistered McConnell at town hall booted from second one — and blasts him on CNN

    The Kentucky woman who made national news on Tuesday after dressing down Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at a town hall visited with CNN’s Brooke Baldwin after she was tossed from a second one and delivered her message to the senator on national TV instead.

    According to Rose Mudd Perkins, she was initially embarrassed by the attention her impassioned attack on the senator attracted, but said job losses and the environment are too important of subjects to leave unaddressed.

    “The politicians, the various politicians have lied and lied and lied to Kentucky, not to mention the country,” Perkins explained. “Those jobs are not coming back and they know they’re not coming back. But they tell them and they get their votes and now they have to tell us we have to ruin the environment so we can get industry here? Okay. Let Kentucky, aside from being the number one in food stamp recipients, let’s also be the dirtiest place we can possibly be because that will bring back industry? No it wont!”

    “I still live in a nice big house and I have a good life but a lot of people aren’t going to be fine and this really concerns me,” Perkins related. ” I lose sleep over it sometimes. I mean, this is about people and you can’t sell us off for your campaign donations and that’s what they have been doing — both parties. They’re not doing anything for the people of Kentucky.”

    She then turned back to McConnell and added, “This is his job, he was elected to serve.”

    Since she was not able to address McConnell again, Baldwin allowed her to speak to him directly on TV, with the Kentucky grandmother righteously blasting him one more time.

    “Mitch McConnell you need to listen to people. You forgot what you are there for and have outlived lived your usefulness,” she began. “I’m sorry sir, I respect you as a human being but that’s about all. You need to get some integrity. I’m asking you to hire me because you need a conscience. Hire me and I will be your conscience because you don’t appear to have one and it’s concerning. This is America, this is Kentucky.”

    Watch the video below via CNN:

    http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/grandmother-who-blistered-mcconnell-at-town-hall-booted-from-second-one-and-blasts-him-on-cnn/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McConnell is too smart to believe that crap about these being paid agitators. He *knows* these are his people. These are his Kentucky constituents. And they are fucking angry at HIM.

      If he wants to stay on top and remain speaker of the House, he is going to need to do something and fast. It's not just him. It's not just every Republican in the House and Senate. It is EVERY Congressperson. Our local Democrats are getting the same treatment.

      People are PISSED!

      McConnell can't ignore it. Business will not continue as usual.

      It is only a matter of deciding what to do. If he doesn't do enough, he's out. The public isn't buying the Obamacare lie. That means he needs to make sure neither Trump nor the Republicans go too far. People are already looking to 2018 and their memories aren't going to be short like in the past. This time they are going to remember. He needs to think long term. If he doesn't tread carefully, in six years the Republicans will once more be in the minority in the House and the Senate and there will be a Democrat in the White House.

      McConnell is experienced and ambitious. He isn't stupid enough to squander a lifetime of work for short term gains and long term losses.

      Delete
  15. Anonymous2:49 PM

    Paranoid Trump Forces Cabinet Members To Only Hire People ‘Loyal’ To Him

    ...So Trump is literally firing anyone who criticizes him or has criticized him in the past, which means he isn’t interested in diverse opinions or experience. He just wants a bunch of yes-men who agree with him no matter what, even if he is wrong.

    That’s incredibly dangerous because Trump is in a job where dissenting opinions can be the difference between life and death, or war and peace. Even President Obama nominated Republicans to high-level positions and valued their input. The greatest presidents in history put together administrations that included some of their sharpest critics because they wanted differing opinions and perspectives that would help them make the best decisions. All Trump is doing is creating his own echo chamber.

    And because of Trump’s obsession with total control and absolute loyalty, the various executive departments are very understaffed.

    http://addictinginfo.org/2017/02/22/report-paranoid-trump-forces-cabinet-members-to-only-hire-people-loyal-to-him/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:26 PM

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/22/donald-trump-loves-the-oscars-more-than-anybody-ever-has-or-ever-will.html

      Trump’s obsession with the Oscars too....

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5:03 PM

      Well little donnie is going to miss the Oscars this years because of the Governor's Ball. Too Bad.

      Delete
  16. Anonymous3:13 PM

    Shot fired 13year old + several other children present>
    http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/watch-off-duty-police-officer-fires-gun-during-physical-confrontation-with-13-year-old-boy/

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous6:12 PM

    Did y'all notice that the NRA is the Palin/Quam team sponsor - and $arah. Wow, Toad really is just a lazy ass livin' off his wife now isn't he? So $arah used the last of the PAC money to underwrite Toad's participation in the ID - can you say somebody is a prostitute? Or a tax-write off. All that couch change and SS money from the Sea o'Pee.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous10:49 PM

    Some people forget that Scalia wrote the opinion in DC v Heller:

    Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#26ref

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nobody's taking anyone's fucking guns away you NRA nutjobs.

    They court simply ruled that there are some categories of weapons the public doesn't have a right to have.

    It's no different than requiring a license for explosives.

    You can't have military grade weapons.

    I don't believe you can own a rocket launcher or surface to air missiles either. Can you go and buy a grenade at the local Army Surplus store? No?

    So you can't have high capacity magazines. What the fuck do you need them for? Are you that bad a shot you have to pepper a deer with 50 rounds to take it down?

    There is no reason for these weapons or these magazines except to kill people. That is not the job of the public. That is the responsibility of the police, National Guard and Military to protect us. THEIR JOB. You want to commit mass slaughter? Then enlist in one of the organizations whose job it is to protect us.

    Otherwise hug your handgun, your shotgun, your hunting rifle, sit down and SHUT THE FUCK UP!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:53 AM

      People already can't own military grade weapons. Ignorant libs get very confused as to what military grade means.

      Delete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.