SCOTUS rejects challenge to Maryland gun ban

The Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to Maryland's law (prompted by a "CT school massacre" incident) banning what they term "assault weapons." In reality, this is a broad term that applies to weapons already tightly controlled by the NFA/GCA by the ATF. This law ignores the fact that an assault weapon is a select fire weapon, not the semi-automatic variant that the law targets - like AR-15's and AK-47's - which are in common use by Citizens.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which has avoided major gun cases for seven years, on Monday declined to hear a challenge backed by the National Rifle Association to Maryland’s 2013 state ban on assault weapons enacted after a Connecticut school massacre.

www.reuters.com...

This is another example of government overreach. Which is why it is so important to get your weapons and NFA items now. Once you have them, getting rid of them becomes next to impossible with boating accidents and the like. It is also helpful to note that several SCOTUS justices will likely be dead of old age before POTUSs term(s) end - leading to a likely heavily stacked Conservative SCOTUS makeup.

I find it very revealing that the alleged "CT school massacre" was used as their Casus belli for this infringement, as well. This was a highly questionable and suspicious occurrence, with many facts and circumstances simply not making sense. Other information presented has been proven to be downright fabrications.

This is why we must reject the knee-jerk reactions after mass killings to ban lawful firearms. Sacrificing the Constitution and our rights is not worth saving any number of lives. Don't let the tear-jerkers convince you otherwise.

This may come as a surprise to some but I am all for having access to guns, even "big cool unnecessary" guns. I'm not a hunter or anything like that so all I have are some little pea shooters in case someone ever breaks in, I can wound them and make my escape.

I am for regulation as well but it's gotta be good sense regulation, and this seems like nonsense regulation as it stands.

As you said, it's too broad.

-Alee

a reply to: NerdGoddess


Exactly

Things need to be much more clearly defined by these laws. Laws based on false premises (like false flag shootings) or with improper wording/technical definitions should be torn from the books and burned. They are an insult to the intelligence of Americans. I think it is silly to arbitrarily punish law abiding Citizens by restricting access to any weapon. Minus the self defense clause, how is a Citizen to support their lawful militia requirement without advanced weapons of war?

The SCOTUS is the US Government. Therefore, allowing the government to decide what weapons/technology we posses to protect ourselves from that government is insane. Never comply with an unconstitutional law.

Liberals have been talking about the prefatory clause that Heller ignores. Well guys, I agree with you entirely. Since the Constitution sets the specifications for mandatory unorganized militia membership, this law is unquestionably oppressive and unconstitutional.

For the simple fact that it prevents you and I from fulfilling our Constitutional duty of being armed militia members. This is entirely separate from self-defense, which is recognized as a natural right which is entirely outside the purview of the government. I find it inappropriate that the same government these laws are designed to protect us from is the arbiter of said protections.

Much like the NREMT and other private accrediting bodies, any regulation needs to come from the gun community itself and not poorly informed government stooges and lawmakers. Much how EMS regulates itself, as does most other professions. Government should have the power to act in the national defense against foreign invasion, not domestic issues which are reserved for the People.

We went on vacation to Maryland several times in the past few years, but as of now I am boycotting any product made or service provided in Maryland/other tear-jerker nanny states. Hit these people where it hurts - their wallet.

originally posted by: JBurns
Hit these people where it hurts - their wallet.

I thought you were supposed to use your guns to remove the tyrannical gov and water the tree of liberty?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: JBurns
Hit these people where it hurts - their wallet.

I thought you were supposed to use your guns to remove the tyrannical gov and water the tree of liberty?

That's been a point of debate for some time now. The standard response is that the 2nd is granted to keep us free of tyrannical government, but if you read the 2nd, it appears the 2nd may be in place to help protect the state itself.

a reply to: daskakik


The population as a whole (or majority) would have to agree said government was tyrannical in order for the next government to be "legitimate."

I personally will never give up a single firearm. However, we are quite far from tyranny and any required response to said tyranny - at this point in time.

a reply to: introvert


The founders made clear that was not their intention, however. They also made clear (through legal precedent) that the right to revolution is held exclusively by the People.

Regardless, even if they made a mistake, firearms have the net effect of preventing government overreach and tyranny. Look at BLM in Nevada with the Bundy's and all that. Not only did they force BLM/feds to tuck tail and run (huge embarassment for Obama, too), but jury nullification prevented them from actually being convicted of any of the overcharged crimes they were accused of. Seems like our system is still working just fine.

And we haven't even had any runaway Grand Juries yet (which is perfectly legal).

originally posted by: JBurns
This is another example of government overreach. Which is why it is so important to get your weapons and NFA items now. Once you have them, getting rid of them becomes next to impossible with boating accidents and the like. It is also helpful to note that several SCOTUS justices will likely be dead of old age before POTUSs term(s) end - leading to a likely heavily stacked Conservative SCOTUS makeup.

Methinks you don't know how Constitutional Review works. The law has been on the books for 5 years now. If the SCOTUS doesn't want to review it then that's that. It has nothing to do with government overreach. If it were government overreach then SCOTUS would want to review the case.

Also, being that this law has been effective for 5 years now, if you think this law is a problem now then HA! Though I think you are just following the script and being outraged like your partisan masters want you to be. I live just outside of Maryland and visit all the time, you are just being melodramatic.

But Gorsuch, a conservative court, wouldn’t go along with a liberal law, would they? Oh geez, did they lie again?

originally posted by: JBurns
However, we are quite far from tyranny and any required response to said tyranny - at this point in time.

How convenient.

originally posted by: JBurns
They also made clear (through legal precedent) that the right to revolution is held exclusively by the People.

The people don't need legal precedent to have a revolution.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


I know exactly how it worked. By government I mean State government, as it is directly infringing on a Citizen's constitutionally enumerated rights. Because supremacy clause.

I thought the law was a problem when it was first created by the mouthbreathing low-brows that pass for Maryland's lawmakers. However, I naturally assumed the SCOTUS would have no choice but to strike it down since the law clearly restricts a gun where the Constitution spells out clearly: Shall Not Be Infringed

Does "Shall not be infringed" mean something different to you? I mean, I know some people can't read but this is pretty clearly defined. "Shall not" means will not, under any circumstances "be infringed."

Call me melodramatic or partisan masters or whatever else. This law infringes on the Constitution, in the name of some false flag shooting and proposed future "it *might* save one single life blah blah tear jerker stuff"

FYI, I don't follow scripts - too smart for that.

a reply to: daskakik


They don't need one, correct. However, you can't deny a precedent was set.

a reply to: JBurns

The founders made clear that was not their intention, however.

Militias exist to be at the ready to fight for the security of the free state, not to begin revolutions.

They also made clear (through legal precedent) that the right to revolution is held exclusively by the People.

No right or legal precedent needs to exist for people to revolt. That is a natural occurrence when and if the people feel the need to do so.

Regardless, even if they made a mistake, firearms have the net effect of preventing government overreach and tyranny. Look at BLM in Nevada with the Bundy's and all that. Not only did they force BLM/feds to tuck tail and run (huge embarassment for Obama, too), but jury nullification prevented them from actually being convicted of any of the overcharged crimes they were accused of. Seems like our system is still working just fine.

That was not an instance of tyrannical government being suppressed.

a reply to: introvert


Correct, security of the free state. If government becomes a threat to that security, then they absolutely exist to carry out revolution or any other remedy they choose. The point is that it is independent of government and not subject to its oversight. If it was, the government would vote to disband and disarm the militia (much like they do today, only through media and popular culture vs. codification).

Correct on point two. But the precedent does indeed exist whether it is needed or not. And we agree it is NOT needed. It is a natural right of the people.

#3: It was an example of a government agency with no valid need for armed forces being routed and thoroughly discredited at the hands of Citizens.

originally posted by: JBurns
They don't need one, correct. However, you can't deny a precedent was set.

I guess it depends on interpretation. Seeing how the group had just revolted without a need for legal precedent one could argue that they really wouldn't see a need for one.

originally posted by: JBurns
The point is that it is independent of government and not subject to its oversight.

When has a revolution ever been dependent on the standing government and subject to its oversight?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: JBurns
Hit these people where it hurts - their wallet.

I thought you were supposed to use your guns to remove the tyrannical gov and water the tree of liberty?

That's been a point of debate for some time now. The standard response is that the 2nd is granted to keep us free of tyrannical government, but if you read the 2nd, it appears the 2nd may be in place to help protect the state itself.

I think that's the most glaring evidence of why "your" interpretation of the Second Amendment is wrong.

It defies all logic that the Founders would use the Bill of Rights, a document expressly created to restrict the power and authority of "the state," to give power to the state at the expense of the citizens.

To me that's why the argument that the Second pertains only to state militia groups falls apart: the document serves explicitly to limit the power of the government, so arguing that the Second is written to benefit the government and not the people just plain doesn't work.

a reply to: Shamrock6

You make it sound like the Founders where one homogeneous group. Some wanted to limit the power of government and others where federalists. They met somewhere in the middle.

a reply to: JBurns

It's interesting that you call this decision "government overreach" when it's actually the opposite. This is a States' rights issue and the federal govt is refusing to get involved.

1) The State of Maryland's govt made a decision that only affects their own State.
2) The lead judicial institution in the federal government (the Supreme Court) refuses to intervene and override the State's decision.
3) The "States' rights" cause wins.

For the record, I'm actually in favor of a universal set of laws and interpretations across the entire country. So I have no problem with the federal govt overriding State govts when they infringe on citizens' rights. But I certainly wouldn't call it "govt overreach" when a larger and more powerful federal institution refuses to override a smaller & less powerful State institution.