More pressure on SCOTUS to hear Maryland AWB

[GOPerfect]

A gun that requires a magazine to function as designed will not work as designed without the magazine.

You are being ridiculous.

You show that you have no idea how the Courts work. A simple question can be asked by a Judge that spills your ideas down the drain.

Q. "Can the gun operate without a 30 round magazine?

A. "Yes it can"

Case closed.

My point originally was not to throw each and every point into this MD case. Keep it as simple as possible. Win one thing and then go after the next. This is why the 2A is ALWAYS losing, to many battles all at the same time and in the same court.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You show that you have no idea how the Courts work. A simple question can be asked by a Judge that spills your ideas down the drain.

Q. "Can the gun operate without a 30 round magazine?

A. "Yes it can"

Case closed.

My point originally was not to throw each and every point into this MD case. Keep it as simple as possible. Win one thing and then go after the next. This is why the 2A is ALWAYS losing, to many battles all at the same time and in the same court.

But that's horseshit and you know it. Can a shotgun operate with just a plastic cup and no shot? Yes.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

You show that you have no idea how the Courts work. A simple question can be asked by a Judge that spills your ideas down the drain.

Q. "Can the gun operate without a 30 round magazine?

A. "Yes it can"

Case closed.

My point originally was not to throw each and every point into this MD case. Keep it as simple as possible. Win one thing and then go after the next. This is why the 2A is ALWAYS losing, to many battles all at the same time and in the same court.

The smart lawyer would reply, "not as originally intended for usability and safety reasons."

 

[Marine Cpl]

I'm still waiting for that link that pertains to a gun only partly functioning to be kosher.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Will a knife still cut without a handle? Yes. We can ban handles on knives now. Will a rifle operate without without a bullet extraction system? Yes. Let's make them single shot disposable ones then. It says so in the courts. That's how it works in the courts.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Will a knife still cut without a handle? Yes. We can ban handles on knives now. Will a rifle operate without without a bullet extraction system? Yes. Let's make them single shot disposable ones then. It says so in the courts. That's how it works in the courts.

I have to agree. I think otherwise we'd be in a much shittier place now than the SAFE Act.

 

[GuyMontag]

That is an opinion and feeling, not fact of law and not in the Constitution.

Where can one find YOUR version of the qualified 2nd Amendment?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Where can one find YOUR version of the qualified 2nd Amendment?

You can't. He had an idea in his head of some liberal court case he vaguely remembered and is quoting it as law that he knows and we don't. Since he cannot come up with that case which hasn't been seen by SCOTUS, we are now all non experts that don't know what we are talking about in regards to law.

 

[holdover]

Its a loophole. like banning weapon sights . It makes the weapon almost useless.

when you begin to ban parts of a weapon , you effectively banning the weapon. Whats the point of banning a magazine? The only thing that does is limit the effectiveness of the weapon . de-fanging the weapon or neutralizing it.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Its a loophole. like banning weapon sights . It makes the weapon almost useless.

when you begin to ban parts of a weapon , you effectively banning the weapon. Whats the point of banning a magazine? The only thing that does is limit the effectiveness of the weapon . de-fanging the weapon or neutralizing it.

Ah ha! Finally, the exposed logic behind AWB's. An indirect way to ban weapons.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Ah ha! Finally, the exposed logic behind AWB's. An indirect way to ban weapons.

That was the intent. The intent wasn't to make you fix magazines and go featureless.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

That was the intent. The intent wasn't to make you fix magazines and go featureless.

I know. I was stating the obvious, lol.

 

[ProgSpear]

This is all such BS. 10 rd vs 30 rd is like arguing the difference between a 5" and a 2" knife or some other arbitrary limit. Butterfly vs. gravity vs. switch vs. thumb opening??? WTF?

It's the intent of the bad dude vs the intent of the good dude that differentiates between which object is truly "legal" or "illegal".

SCOTUS has already laid markers with Heller and McDonald, and have been completely ignored by those that think the mob should rule (as long as they rule the mob), leading to an utter breakdown in the idea of the "rule of law", which is the only true moderating factor of society in the USA.

The problem is the idiotic laws that these stupid fucks pass to try to control "the most people possible" will go out the window when the majority of "the most people possible" decide the rule of law has been totally dispensed with and actual mob rule is the ONLY way to deal with whatever comes down. ALL of these politicians, judges, and other self centered SOB's ignore this fact ultimately at their own peril.

 

[Mosinitis]

My point originally was not to throw each and every point into this MD case. Keep it as simple as possible. Win one thing and then go after the next. This is why the 2A is ALWAYS losing, to many battles all at the same time and in the same court.

They are going to keep banning 10 things at a time and you will fight to reverse one. Doesn't sound like a good strategy.

 

[Mosinitis]

Actually MD ban has an exception for AR's used in service rifle matches, 20" heavy barrel and A2 stock. They were able to sneak this in. Magazine capacity should be the priority in MD case.

 

[GOPerfect]

Actually MD ban has an exception for AR's used in service rifle matches, 20" heavy barrel and A2 stock. They were able to sneak this in. Magazine capacity should be the priority in MD case.

If that is the case, go after that. I will repeat, too many losses in the courts because too many different items are being argued at the same time!

 

[GuyMontag]

This is a lot like Free Speech, not all Free Speech is free.

The limitations on free speech can be counted on one hand, suggesting the REAMS of statutory bullshit enacted since 1934 as equivalent doesn't hold water.

 

[GOPerfect]

The magazine restriction is better fought under a violation of the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendments. Under the Second it holds very little water.

The 14th Amendment reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It can be fought a number of ways but it can't be said that an integral part of the the firearm is not covered by the 2A no matter what a liberal judge in a black robe says. I'm sure George Washington himself would agree with that.

 

[Grimscale]

If that is the case, go after that. I will repeat, too many losses in the courts because too many different items are being argued at the same time!

The problem, as I see it, is that these corrupt and tyrannical Legislators can, in one "Law", ban MULTIPLE items at once.
Yet, when the "Law" is challenged in Court, only the specific item questioned is in jeopardy. ie: Magazine limits, cosmetic features, etc.
When a "Law" is challenged as being un-Constitutional, and found as such in part, the entire "Law" should be scrapped and have to be re-written.
Likewise, when a "Law" *IS* found to be un-Constitutional, the Legislators who wrote and voted for it should be sanctioned in some way. There MUST be repercussions for attempting to infringe on the Rights of law-abiding Citizens! Otherwise, it can never be a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

 

[Chuck D]

With regards to magazine capacity.

Once the 1994 AWB was enacted, the new factory standard for most firearms was issuing a 10 round magazine with the firearm, as shipped from the factory.

When the Federal ban was allowed to expire, certain States retained the 10 round capacity limit and manufacturers continued to ship firearms with reduced capacity magazines and offered reduced capacity magazines as replacements for worn or damaged magazines.

The 10 round magazine is a FACTORY STANDARD. There is NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment or any laws passed thereafter that states an AR platform rifle must be shipped with a 30 round magazine or that a Glock G17 must be shipped with a 17 round magazine.

the reason why the Safe Act 7 round limit was ruled unconstitutional is because it required a magazine , whose capacity was not a recognized industry standard, to be utilized. In fact....no magazine of such construction existed and to require it equated to a ban on 99% of the semi automatic handguns in the marketplace today which IS a violation of the 2nd Amendment as illustrated in the Heller decision.

If manufacturers refused to design and ship 10 round magazines in 1994 then there would be no alternative factory standard and most of you who look at this matter as an AR must be shipped with a 30 round magazine would have a sound argument.

A few of the posters to this thread have it 100% correct. Stop litigating this deal as if its an all or nothing proposition. Show that banning the FIREARM is a violation of my Constitutional rights. Once we've established that THEN work on mag cap bans.

10 round magazines are here to stay. Better get used to it.

 

[Bob]

When are they supposed to decide whether or not to take this case?

Looks like your question got lost in the fray.
The state of Maryland has been given until the middle of October to respond to the petition, so no sooner than that.

 

[stuck in ny]

Magazine restrictions are NOT a violation of the 2A! Period. Don't get me wrong, I hate the laws that restrict capacity but it is not a 2A violation.

The rest of the case is in direct violation.

Bullshit. Today the military uses large mags, then the military used muskets. Its not about the object, its about PARITY.

 

[Chuck D]

Bullshit. Today the military uses large mags, then the military used muskets. Its not about the object, its about PARITY.

Show me ANYWHERE in the 2nd Amendment, Heller decision, or any other decision for that matter where it says magazine capacity is a PROTECTED right.

If you can't...then admit you're position is based in emotion not logic based upon legal precedent. It was Scalia who stated in his Heller decision that "reasonable restrictions" could be enacted.

The military used horse drawn carriages. Now they use high tech jet engine powered tanks. Using your "bullshit" label theory, I should be able to but a modern tank.

Think this thing through for just a second. What would you rather have, a full featured rifle that we all KNOW is protected under the Constitution and confirmed through the Heller decision with a 10 round magazine or a complaint version that is nothing more than an abortion of the original design with a 10 round magazine because at the end of the day we're going to wind up with one or the other.

 

[GuyMontag]

A few of the posters to this thread have it 100% correct. Stop litigating this deal as if its an all or nothing proposition.

Thank you Justice Taney.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Show me ANYWHERE in the 2nd Amendment, Heller decision, or any other decision for that matter where it says magazine capacity is a PROTECTED right.

If you can't...then admit you're position is based in emotion not logic based upon legal precedent. It was Scalia who stated in his Heller decision that "reasonable restrictions" could be enacted.

The military used horse drawn carriages. Now they use high tech jet engine powered tanks. Using your "bullshit" label theory, I should be able to but a modern tank.

Think this thing through for just a second. What would you rather have, a full featured rifle that we all KNOW is protected under the Constitution and confirmed through the Heller decision with a 10 round magazine or a complaint version that is nothing more than an abortion of the original design with a 10 round magazine because at the end of the day we're going to wind up with one or the other.

You quote Heller as if the founding fathers intended it to go via that decision. If Heller had one more liberal judge, the decision would have been different.

Fuck that. They weren't designed to run with 10 round magazines just the same as your car want designed to run with just 5 gallons.

Nowhere in the 2A, does it say that firearm parts can be limited.

 

[nortatoga]

You quote Heller as if the founding fathers intended it to go via that decision. If Heller had one more liberal judge, the decision would have been different.

Fuck that. They weren't designed to run with 10 round magazines just the same as your car want designed to run with just 5 gallons.

Nowhere in the 2A, does it say that firearm parts can be limited.

Those are some real words of wisdom!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Those are some real words of wisdom!

They are when you get down to the simplicity of them. Do you think the founding fathers meant what those bought and paid for clowns in black robes ruled when they decided Heller?

If your answer is "Yes" then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[nortatoga]

They are when you get down to the simplicity of them. Do you think the founding fathers meant what those bought and paid for clowns in black robes ruled when they decided Heller?

If your answer is "Yes" then I don't know what to tell you.

You just keep digging! Again you show no understanding of how things work!

 

[Marine Cpl]

You just keep digging! Again you show no understanding of how things work!

Digging what? What exactly do you mean by that?

As as far as knowing how things work, I'm well aware of the corruption, misinterpretation, and skewing done to the 2A by politicians and judges.

Anyone who isn't aware is brainwashed.