Federal Judge Rules AR-15′s Are “Dangerous and Unusual,

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by Kosh4095, Aug 12, 2014.

  1. http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...s-and-unusual-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment/


    Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.

    First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.



    The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.

    As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.

    Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.

    Blake further points out that so called “assault weapons” are “disproportionately represented in mass shootings”.

    Blake’s comments are misguided at best and it would seem difficult to weigh her opinion against the Supreme Court’s Heller decision.

    Blake is a Bill Clinton appointed judge.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2014
  2. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    Wow....... So according to this ass hat, the 2nd is nothing but a home defense amendment...... And any gun not ideally suited for such will face the same scrutiny.... Frickin liberal douchebaggery at its finest.
     

  3. gotcox

    gotcox Member

    Could not agree more bull. These liberal idiots will use any and all excuses they can come up with. Even if there is no logic or facts to back it up. When they get pinned in a corner on the reality of it they just fall back to "it's for the kids" "if this saves even one life" BS. There unicorn and puppies fairytale world really only exists in there own minds.
     
  4. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member


    I'll buy the it's for the kids BS, when they stand against abortion.
     
  5. Rerun

    Rerun Supporting Member

    8,248
    2,652
    What part of "Right to keep and bear ARMS does this nutjob not understand?

    Doofus!

    eldar
     
  6. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

  7. Liberty

    Liberty Shhh! Lifetime Supporter

    What part of "shall not be infringed" does the nutjob not understand?

    Oh yeah, the part where she's a left-wing nutjob. Because left-wing nutjobs think it's the responsibility of the judiciary to rewrite law.
     
  8. Dagwood

    Dagwood Supporting Member

    Freakin scary!! is all I gotta say.
     
  9. This gal must have been reading a different constitution than I did in school
    I never seen anything about " home defense" or the hunting one that always comes up. Its just sad :confused:

    why is the term "shall not be infringed" so dam hard to understand for some!
     
  10. gotcox

    gotcox Member

    I used to think and use that argument also. But the facts are, our guns rights have been infringed more than a dozen times. And that is just federal law. In some states it is three or four times worse. I laugh when I hear and see people make the comment "not one more inch" as if all the infringement to this point doesn't matter but the next inch will. No to mention we are losing feet a day, not an inch and they don't do anything about it. They will make the same comment next month. Just like taxs. Everyone wants to complain, but no one does anything about it when year after year the taxs go up.

    People today are to much talk and not enough walk.
     
  11. zen

    zen Member

    75
    1
    Someone get her a pair of tweezers and fashion sense.

    Seems to me this needs to get appealed to the Circuit Court. I'm not going to read through her 49 page summary, but my layman's mentality suggests she is out on a limb with her ruling.
     
  12. shepherd321

    shepherd321 Supporting Member

    1,712
    628
    Maryland. You keep getting worse.
     
  13. Rerun

    Rerun Supporting Member

    8,248
    2,652
    Amazing.

    In 1995, I bought a Winchester receivered M-1 Garand serial number 101,XXX from a Woolsworth department Store in Maryland.

    Times have changed for the worse.

    eldar
     
  14. ArmyScout

    ArmyScout Supporting Member

    3,960
    279
    IL
    She is a liberal Female Judge, what else can you expect. Her decision should not be a surprise. The AR is a dangerous gun, all guns are dangerous if mishandled. As far as being unusual, I am not sure what that means. There are enough of them in the hands of gun owners to be usual.
     
  15. MachoMelvin

    MachoMelvin Well-Known Member

    Has anybody met a Federal Judge that wasn't DANGEROUS & UNUSUAL?
     
  16. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    It's in Maryland. It will almost certainly be appealed. Her "suitability test" is not in line with recent SCOTUS rulings. It will most likely lose on appeal and probably go to SCOTUS eventually where, if the sitting justices hasn't changed, will not be upheld.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  17. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Who cares? Her physical attractiveness has no bearing upon her skills, ability, or suitability as a Judge.

    If she were smoke'n hot and made the same ruling would it change how you felt about the ruling?

    If she still looked this way but ruled in favor of 2A rights, would you still say that she needed to primp or would you just cheer the ruling?

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  18. Back2School

    Back2School Member

    1,190
    0
    I left in 88 and have only been back 2 times. Regret both times.

    I loved living on the Bay, and growing up on the water crabbing and fishing; it was fantastic. Riding your bike a block with a Spackle bucket, some chicken necks or salted eel, line and crab net was all you needed for a day of fun.

    Too bad you have to live with the politics of the people there.
     
  19. btolle

    btolle Member

    48
    0
    She would probably say my Taurus .357 with a 2" barrel is not an ideal hunting weapon and I would agree but still keep it for concealed carry (and yes, I have a Texas CHL).

    For the woods I carry a Ruger .357 with 6" barrel for self defense from feral hogs!
     
  20. I just thought we could all use a reminder of how our country came to be.