Maryland court holds Maryland AWB constitutional

The court purports to apply the intermediate scrutiny that is applied to first amendment cases. I don’t think she would be very receptive to a law that prohibited the exercise of the first amendment via a particular medium, this is not time/manner/place, this is an absolute ban on a particular type of firearm, but reasonable minds can disagree on that point, I suppose. What really gets me is the ignorance of facts displayed in the opinion.

The opinion includes whoppers like:

she says that the shooter in aurora CO fired 100 rounds from a 100 round magazine

She seems to think that a .223/5.56 round fired from an ar-15 is somehow deadlier than the same round fired from another rifle (I would think that the shorter barrels would make them less deadly but thats a nitpick).

She adopts the laughable position that semi-automatic rifles may be MORE deadly than their than their fully automatic counterparts.

She talks about assault wewapons having “military features” without really understanding wtf she is talking about.

By what logic can one possibly interpret the second amendment as only allowing weapons without military features? Even if you submit to the “collective rights” militia interpretation of the second amendment, it’s obvious that the second amendment is about having military arms.

In the famous US vs Miller case, which gun control advocates perplexingly view as a win for them, the reason the ruling went against Miller (aside from the fact that he had no representation at the trial) is that he didn’t prove that his weapon, a sawed off shotgun, was a military arm or militarily useful.

There’s no historical or textual case that can be made that the second amendment defends the right to own non-military arms, and that military features on a rifle go against it. Quite the opposite - being militarily useful is what the second amendment most protects.

For the first 200 years or so of our country’s history, it was extremely common for ordinary people to own the soldier’s rifle of the day. Only when they became black and plastic and menacing looking did we suddenly decide that the second amendment is about some single shot target rifle .22 or perhaps your grandpa’s old revolver.

There is no rational basis on which to conclude that the second amendment does not permit weapons with military features. If anything, in accordance with historical context and the US vs Miller ruling, you could make a case that the second amendment doesn’t protect weapons without military usefulness. This is quite the opposite, and has no basis in any sort of sound logic.

In what way were the Maryland State Police “defendants”?

(they are identified as such in the opening lines of the judge’s ruling)

It’s a step in the right direcion. The correct ruling would be that no person has the right to keep and bear arms who is not engaged in keeping the peace, of course, but we’ll get there eventually.

Which jammed on him, as the “awesome but impractical” are wont to do. I don’t know if he finished out all 100.

Shorter than what? Maybe if it’s an “M4gery.” But “AR-15” specifies no length, and depends on how short. .223 is considered a smaller round, true, e.g. under 50% the energy of .30-06.

They probably are, in the sense that most people don’t have experience controlling FA, or conserving ammo because they don’t realize that they’re empty in 2-4 seconds.

Seems this was mostly about magazine size. But having knowledge about a topic is not required to legislate it, of course. Nothing new under the sun. It’s Maryland, anyway, I’m surprised this wasn’t already law.

At a guess, the plaintiffs are looking for an order restraining the MSP from enforcing the impugned legislation (on the grounds of its unconstitutionality). If you’re looking for an order against somebody, you generally have to join him as a defendant so that he has an opportunity to be heard on the question of whether the order should be granted.

When someone attempted to break into my home earlier this summer my household was, unfortunately, forced to engage in keeping the peace until the cops arrived. Maybe you don’t mind being defenseless, I do.

You mean like in Ferguson MO, where SWAT teams are tear gassing and arresting anyone who tries to video them, because that pesky First Amendment is in the way?

Whenever the government has a monopoly of weapons, it always ends up saying “Shut up and do what you’re told, you goddamn peasants!”

As much as I’m in favor of gun rights, that’s sheer fucking idiocy. Have all the millions of guns yet stopped one SWAT raid?

Just worry about being rendered defenseless when your guns are taken but the criminal element still has them.

So to be clear: you believe the Ferguson protesters are legally and morally justified in opening fire on the officers firing tear gas?

So you’re saying the people of Ferguson would be better off launching an armed rebellion against the United States, then?

I’m pretty solidly in favor of reasonable gun control, but it’s pretty absurd to think that the 2nd amendment doesn’t cover military weapons. That’s its primary purpose. It would be more defensible to say it only covers military weapons (not that I would agree with that interpretation either).

Yep. I think the majority of the casualties were shot with a shotgun.

Like i said it was a nitpick. But it certainly not the case that round from an AR-15 is deadlier than the same round from a rifle that doesn’t have a bayonet lug and pistol grip.

That wasn’t the context of the comparison but I get your point.

Having knowledge of the topic is not required but it helps the legislation survive judicial review. They could not ban guns in the effort to cure cancer, there has to be a link between what they are trying to do and the infringement of the right they are using to do it. When they say that they are trying to improve public safety by banning a subset of guns that are indistinguishable from other guns but for some cosmetic features, I don’t think there is a rational link between legilation and the purported purpose.

Tyranny cannot exist in a functioning democracy, only stupid voters.

Fergusun is majority black and yet they have an almost all white police force. There is a problem there that can be solved politically.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with Smapti. As far as he’s concerned, the First Amendment (and all the others, for that matter) are no bar to any police conduct.

That’s only a problem of optics, not necessarily an indication of any further problem. Presumably they are hiring the best candidates for the job, given the applicant pool. If you think otherwise, you’re asserting some kind of illegal discriminatory hiring scheme which I don’t think there is any evidence for.

On top of that, for this to be a problem you are somehow implying that white people cannot effectively police black people, or black people cannot respond lawfully to white people. Or some combination all of which is a pretty shitty view of things, and the people involved.
As for the ruling, it’s at the district court level and will surely be appealed.

He’s not implying either of those things. He is implying that a community is unlikely to see a blatantly unrepresentative police force as being there to protect it. Particularly in Missouri.

Why? Can you specify why that would be the case?

Because Southern police forces have historically done nothing to protect blacks as individuals and everything to disenfranchise them as a group. That sort of distrust lingers. I presumably don’t need to point out that Missouri was segregated even if it wasn’t a “Southern” state.

How is that different than what I stated, except for the fact that your description is geographically limited to Missouri?