Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > >


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-22-2017, 04:22 PM
Jessie's Avatar
Jessie Jessie is offline
US Veteran
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 4,769
Likes: 3,706
Liked 6,090 Times in 2,414 Posts
Default Maryland in trouble still

I see where the appeals court, 4th district, has upheld Marylands ban on "assault weapons" and more than 10 round magazines.
Ruling was 10-4. Bad news.
I imagine this will get to the the Supreme Court. All the more reason for constitutional judges.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-22-2017, 04:32 PM
Whitwabit Whitwabit is offline
US Veteran
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 1,654
Likes: 731
Liked 1,246 Times in 634 Posts
Default Assault Weapons Not Protected

Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules in a 10 to 4 Ruling ..

Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules - NBC News
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-22-2017, 04:39 PM
franzas's Avatar
franzas franzas is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 566
Likes: 373
Liked 315 Times in 166 Posts
Default

The real issue is "assault weapons." It is a made-up term, designed to scare people by liberal gun grabbers.

Just wait for our new SC judge.
__________________
an actual conservative
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Like Post:
  #4  
Old 02-22-2017, 04:55 PM
Arik Arik is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Outside Philadelphia Pa
Posts: 14,652
Likes: 6,360
Liked 14,423 Times in 6,206 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franzas View Post
The real issue is "assault weapons." It is a made-up term, designed to scare people by liberal gun grabbers.

Just wait for our new SC judge.
It's no so much a made up term (assault rifles) as it is used wrong.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 02-22-2017, 05:00 PM
TANKLEGACY TANKLEGACY is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Lousiana
Posts: 179
Likes: 107
Liked 236 Times in 74 Posts
Default

If it isnt fully automatic...then its not an "assault rifle"....

And if you are a civilian with a fully automatic weapon...you either are rich as hell(cost around $14,000 for a worn out automatic rifle) and procured it properly with all the paperwork...or ....you have it illegally.

Last edited by TANKLEGACY; 02-22-2017 at 05:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #6  
Old 02-22-2017, 05:35 PM
franzas's Avatar
franzas franzas is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 566
Likes: 373
Liked 315 Times in 166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik View Post
It's no so much a made up term (assault rifles) as it is used wrong.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
2 points:

1. If I beat you over the head with a hammer, I would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Is a hammer now an assault weapon?

2. 'Assault weapon' is redundant. Anything you assault someone with is a weapon, whether it is a firearm or the aforementioned hammer. In MY opinion, the term 'weapon' implies assault. If it's not being used for malicious purposes (i.e. assault), then it is a tool. My shotgun is a hunting tool, my J frames are self-defense tools, my wrenches are mechanic's tools, etc. The minute I decide to start shooting people outside the law or beating people with wrenches, feel free to refer to my firearms and other tools as weapons or assault weapons. Until then, I prefer to call them tools. They are inanimate objects incapable of assaulting anyone without human interaction. 'Assault weapon' is a pointless term, unjustly applied to firearms in order to instill fear into the weak-minded.
__________________
an actual conservative

Last edited by franzas; 02-22-2017 at 05:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Like Post:
  #7  
Old 02-22-2017, 05:54 PM
i1afli i1afli is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: E. TN
Posts: 194
Likes: 26
Liked 173 Times in 88 Posts
Default

So now all they have to do is "classify" something as an assault weapon and it's no longer protected.
Your Ruger 10/22 is about to become a weapon of war.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #8  
Old 02-22-2017, 06:06 PM
franzas's Avatar
franzas franzas is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 566
Likes: 373
Liked 315 Times in 166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by i1afli View Post
So now all they have to do is "classify" something as an assault weapon and it's no longer protected.
Your Ruger 10/22 is about to become a weapon of war.
It's not about guns, it's about control.
__________________
an actual conservative
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #9  
Old 02-22-2017, 06:08 PM
wheelgunguy's Avatar
wheelgunguy wheelgunguy is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 268
Likes: 369
Liked 318 Times in 139 Posts
Default

Why would a bunch of revolutionaries that just won a war against a military super power think that the citizenry should have long guns somewhere close to the military's?
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #10  
Old 02-22-2017, 06:45 PM
WCCPHD's Avatar
WCCPHD WCCPHD is offline
SWCA Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 840
Likes: 994
Liked 2,674 Times in 420 Posts
Default

What is scary is that the Fourth Circuit is traditionally one of the more conservative appeals courts.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-22-2017, 06:57 PM
BB57's Avatar
BB57 BB57 is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 512
Liked 2,590 Times in 840 Posts
Default

The term "assault weapon" just represents more drift in terminology.

An "assault rifle" was a fully automatic carbine or rifle firing a intermediate cartridge.

The media applied that term to the AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and carbines and to a whole host of other "military style" semi-automatic rifles and carbines.

At some point the press made them sound more evil by calling them "assault weapons".

The court in this has further sowed confusion referring the semi-automatic rifles and carbines banned in MD as "weapons of war".

"Weapon of war"? I have a P.08 Luger, a Walther P-38, an 1895 Nagant, a Victory Model, a No 4 Mk II Lee Enfield, a P-17 Enfield, a 1903A1, a 1903A3, a 1911A1, and an L66A1 that are all legitimate "weapons of war" that are also legal to own in MD. Go figure.

I also have a couple of 12 plus pound heavy barrel varmint AR-15s, an 11 pound AR-15 service match rifle and a dedicated .22LR AR-15 none of which anyone would ever consider taking to war, but that are not legal in MD, because they violate some arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", and now apparently "weapon of war".

Last edited by BB57; 02-22-2017 at 07:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #12  
Old 02-22-2017, 07:04 PM
Flattop5 Flattop5 is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 204
Likes: 15
Liked 197 Times in 89 Posts
Default

An "assault weapon" is a fully-automatic machine gun. If you don't own one, then this bogus court ruling doesn't apply to you.

Pay no attention to silly judges behind the bench. Think free, be free.



---------------
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #13  
Old 02-22-2017, 07:31 PM
shell627 shell627 is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: middle Tn
Posts: 694
Likes: 899
Liked 1,005 Times in 374 Posts
Default

The main difference between.Assault weapon and defense weapon is how they are used.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #14  
Old 02-22-2017, 07:38 PM
triaxle triaxle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 613
Likes: 2
Liked 100 Times in 70 Posts
Default

We need to Vote them out the door again .
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-22-2017, 07:48 PM
chud333's Avatar
chud333 chud333 is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 7,911
Likes: 31,524
Liked 22,425 Times in 4,614 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TANKLEGACY View Post
If it isnt fully automatic...then its not an "assault rifle"....

And if you are a civilian with a fully automatic weapon...you either are rich as hell(cost around $14,000 for a worn out automatic rifle) and procured it properly with all the paperwork...or ....you have it illegally.
Or the BATF approved slide-fire or bump-fire stock...

Those Evil black rifles !!


Chuck
__________________
They hold no Quarter
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-22-2017, 07:58 PM
growr growr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montana
Posts: 3,097
Likes: 1,406
Liked 1,627 Times in 768 Posts
Default

An Assault Weapon is anything that is pointed at ME or my loved ones!!

Randy
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #17  
Old 02-22-2017, 09:40 PM
franzas's Avatar
franzas franzas is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 566
Likes: 373
Liked 315 Times in 166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BB57 View Post
The term "assault weapon" just represents more drift in terminology.

An "assault rifle" was a fully automatic carbine or rifle firing a intermediate cartridge.

The media applied that term to the AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and carbines and to a whole host of other "military style" semi-automatic rifles and carbines.

At some point the press made them sound more evil by calling them "assault weapons".

The court in this has further sowed confusion referring the semi-automatic rifles and carbines banned in MD as "weapons of war".

"Weapon of war"? I have a P.08 Luger, a Walther P-38, an 1895 Nagant, a Victory Model, a No 4 Mk II Lee Enfield, a P-17 Enfield, a 1903A1, a 1903A3, a 1911A1, and an L66A1 that are all legitimate "weapons of war" that are also legal to own in MD. Go figure.

I also have a couple of 12 plus pound heavy barrel varmint AR-15s, an 11 pound AR-15 service match rifle and a dedicated .22LR AR-15 none of which anyone would ever consider taking to war, but that are not legal in MD, because they violate some arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", and now apparently "weapon of war".
spot-on.

"Assault rifle" was strictly a class of firearms used by militaries. Not a legal definition. You're right about the press (and at the time, the clinton admin) creating this new class of firearms based on cosmetics, that are somehow more "deadly." And now this "weapon of war" is just a further arbitrary way to attempt to delegitimize common semiautomatic rifles.

Sad more than anything.
__________________
an actual conservative
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-22-2017, 10:12 PM
TANKLEGACY TANKLEGACY is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Lousiana
Posts: 179
Likes: 107
Liked 236 Times in 74 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shell627 View Post
The main difference between.Assault weapon and defense weapon is how they are used.
Actually the main difference is.. if the rifle has fully automatic capabilities
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-22-2017, 10:24 PM
snuffy51's Avatar
snuffy51 snuffy51 is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Tennessee 38017
Posts: 1,276
Likes: 2,406
Liked 1,577 Times in 598 Posts
Default

"Assault Weapon" is a term invented by people that don't have anything else to do except to mess with honest folks. Besides, they are hard to hide in your britches.
__________________
"Only guns that spin"
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #20  
Old 02-22-2017, 10:57 PM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 20,833
Likes: 24,463
Liked 16,546 Times in 8,286 Posts
Default Opposite of...

Quote:
Originally Posted by franzas View Post
2 points:

1. If I beat you over the head with a hammer, I would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Is a hammer now an assault weapon?

2. 'Assault weapon' is redundant. Anything you assault someone with is a weapon, whether it is a firearm or the aforementioned hammer. In MY opinion, the term 'weapon' implies assault. If it's not being used for malicious purposes (i.e. assault), then it is a tool. My shotgun is a hunting tool, my J frames are self-defense tools, my wrenches are mechanic's tools, etc. The minute I decide to start shooting people outside the law or beating people with wrenches, feel free to refer to my firearms and other tools as weapons or assault weapons. Until then, I prefer to call them tools. They are inanimate objects incapable of assaulting anyone without human interaction. 'Assault weapon' is a pointless term, unjustly applied to firearms in order to instill fear into the weak-minded.
It is opposite to a defensive weapon, which is what we and police carry. When the 'assault weapon' was created it was designed to aid in an attack by crack troops on an enemy as opposed to the 'service rifle' and by definition, had full auto capability. They were so effective, it was decided to arm nearly ALL the troops with one as a standard weapon. The types of war also evolved to where the assault rifle became much more useful than a long 'service rifle',
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-22-2017, 11:06 PM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 20,833
Likes: 24,463
Liked 16,546 Times in 8,286 Posts
Default Blurring the lines...

The stuff about how many guns can possibly be identified as 'assault' rifles.

Like they say people are against immigration because they are against illegal immmigration.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #22  
Old 02-22-2017, 11:12 PM
franzas's Avatar
franzas franzas is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 566
Likes: 373
Liked 315 Times in 166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwsmith View Post
It is opposite to a defensive weapon, which is what we and police carry. When the 'assault weapon' was created it was designed to aid in an attack by crack troops on an enemy as opposed to the 'service rifle' and by definition, had full auto capability. They were so effective, it was decided to arm nearly ALL the troops with one as a standard weapon. The types of war also evolved to where the assault rifle became much more useful than a long 'service rifle',
RW,

I agree with you for the most part, except for one word- weapon.

To me, the word 'weapon' implies malicious intent. If I were using it in defense, I am not the aggressor. I am defending against his maliciousness. I would use whatever tools are available to me in order to counter; a rock up to and including a firearm. Like I said previously, a firearm is an inanimate object; incapable of being a weapon or assaulting someone without human interaction. Humans weaponize objects, not the other way around. Yes, this can mean a rock or a hammer; not necessarily a firearm.

By calling all firearms weapons was the first step in demonizing them to the legislature, courts and private citizens alike; gun control's first blow. Any object is not a weapon unless you use it as such. Remember that.


I'm sorry if I keep hijacking this thread. It is something I feel very strongly about. Correcting this [firearm] language is just as important as correcting the rest of the PC junk the left has forcefed us over the last 8 years.
__________________
an actual conservative

Last edited by franzas; 02-22-2017 at 11:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-22-2017, 11:24 PM
poordevil poordevil is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yuma
Posts: 776
Likes: 165
Liked 410 Times in 250 Posts
Default

Those are the guns that are absolutely intended and considered protected by the second amendment and useful by we, citizens as a balance of power.
__________________
A Snider squibbed n the Jungle
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #24  
Old 02-22-2017, 11:49 PM
franzas's Avatar
franzas franzas is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 566
Likes: 373
Liked 315 Times in 166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwsmith View Post
The stuff about how many guns can possibly be identified as 'assault' rifles.

Like they say people are against immigration because they are against illegal immmigration.
This is exactly what BB57 was referring to, in regards to "weapons of war." Calling AR-15s weapons of war is incorrect, just as saying illegals have no right to be here somehow makes you racist or anti-immigration.

Case and point- the same people calling AR-15s weapons of war are the same people supporting illegal immigration.

About the only thing that can fix them is a lobotomy at 2750 ft/s.
__________________
an actual conservative
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #25  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:06 AM
pittpa's Avatar
pittpa pittpa is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW PA
Posts: 697
Likes: 315
Liked 667 Times in 285 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franzas View Post
RW,

I agree with you for the most part, except for one word- weapon.

To me, the word 'weapon' implies malicious intent. If I were using it in defense, I am not the aggressor. I am defending against his maliciousness. I would use whatever tools are available to me in order to counter; a rock up to and including a firearm. Like I said previously, a firearm is an inanimate object; incapable of being a weapon or assaulting someone without human interaction. Humans weaponize objects, not the other way around. Yes, this can mean a rock or a hammer; not necessarily a firearm.
By calling all firearms weapons was the first step in demonizing them to the legislature, courts and private citizens alike; gun control's first blow. Any object is not a weapon unless you use it as such. Remember that.


I'm sorry if I keep hijacking this thread. It is something I feel very strongly about. Correcting this [firearm] language is just as important as correcting the rest of the PC junk the left has forcefed us over the last 8 years.
Are you suggesting that nothing is a weapon until it is used with malicious intent, and righteous intent to harm is not withing the definition of malice?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:11 AM
shell627 shell627 is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: middle Tn
Posts: 694
Likes: 899
Liked 1,005 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TANKLEGACY View Post
Actually the main difference is.. if the rifle has fully automatic capabilities
Actually if I beat you with a brick it is a assault weapon.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #27  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:18 AM
franzas's Avatar
franzas franzas is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 566
Likes: 373
Liked 315 Times in 166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pittpa View Post
Are you suggesting that nothing is a weapon until it is used with malicious intent, and righteous intent to harm is not withing the definition of malice?
I would say yes. That rock on the ground, a crow bar or my Glock are just inanimate objects. They become weapons when I decide to use them to cause harm. "Malicious intent" is my own wording. Yes, willfully using an object (not firearms, specifically) to cause harm is malice.

my point was that firearms, like all things, are incapable of causing any harm without human manipulation. Place blame on the human, not the object used.

We need to remove firearms' association to 'weapons.'
__________________
an actual conservative
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:29 AM
Mark IV's Avatar
Mark IV Mark IV is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 338
Likes: 512
Liked 247 Times in 131 Posts
Default

We can clench our tiny fists and stomp our little feet and placate ourselves with meaningless feel-good arguments about semantics and technical definitions till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, this decision was real, and will be enforced by guys with real assault weapons.
We appear to have been granted a few years' reprieve with this last election, but these kind of "progressive" rulings will eventually be coming at us like tsunami, at the national/international level.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #29  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:53 AM
franzas's Avatar
franzas franzas is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 566
Likes: 373
Liked 315 Times in 166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark IV View Post
We can clench our tiny fists and stomp our little feet and placate ourselves with meaningless feel-good arguments about semantics and technical definitions till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, this decision was real, and will be enforced by guys with real assault weapons.
We appear to have been granted a few years' reprieve with this last election, but these kind of "progressive" rulings will eventually be coming at us like tsunami, at the national/international level.
Hopefully with this last election we can roll back some of the liberal talking points.

Second, I'm sure a well armed populous is not afraid of the government, nor would the current president deploy them against us.

Third, the last president tried to bring international gun control here. It didn't work. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled (in Medellín v. Texas) that the US is a sovereign nation and that international rulings or treaties are unenforceable without Congress' consent.
__________________
an actual conservative

Last edited by franzas; 02-23-2017 at 01:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-23-2017, 09:34 AM
Watchdog's Avatar
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
US Veteran
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,500
Likes: 10,718
Liked 13,362 Times in 3,609 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franzas View Post
Just wait for our new SC judge.
There is no "new SC judge". If you're referring to Neil Gorsuch, he's still just a nominee to the Supreme Court. His confirmation hearings don't even begin until March. He doesn't have the job yet.

And even when/if he's confirmed, if you believe he's going to wave some sort of judicial magic wand and make all the restrictive 2A laws vanish, you're probably going to be disappointed.
__________________
I can't get no...satisfaction.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #31  
Old 02-23-2017, 09:44 AM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 8,823
Likes: 932
Liked 7,563 Times in 3,128 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franzas View Post
The real issue is "assault weapons." It is a made-up term, designed to scare people by liberal gun grabbers.
It has no fixed meaning. It's whatever particular firearm or class of firearms (no matter how vaguely defined) which any particular anti-gun cultist wants to ban at any particular moment.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-23-2017, 11:01 AM
Lee in Quartzsite's Avatar
Lee in Quartzsite Lee in Quartzsite is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Western Arizona
Posts: 1,727
Likes: 252
Liked 1,581 Times in 570 Posts
Default

Here is one from a long time ago.

Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-20-2017, 04:53 AM
bobm001 bobm001 is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2
Likes: 5
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

The term "assault weapon" is nothing more than "bad grammar". The word "assault" is either a verb or an adverb. NOT an "adjective".
Those of us in the "People's Republic of New York" are forbidden to own a
"shoulder fired, magazine fed, gas operated, SEMI automatic rifle with a pistol grip and flash suppressor". "They" claim this was done to make us more "SAFE". From who?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-20-2017, 07:03 AM
bushmaster1313's Avatar
bushmaster1313 bushmaster1313 is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,883
Likes: 420
Liked 6,256 Times in 1,459 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessie View Post
I imagine this will get to the the Supreme Court. All the more reason for constitutional judges.
No reason to think this will get to the Supreme Court

When Scalia was still alive the Court declined to take the appeal of the Assault Weapon ban out of Highland Park Michigan.

Even with a Gorsuch confirmation there is no reason to think the Maryland case would be heard.
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:52 AM
jag312's Avatar
jag312 jag312 is offline
Member
Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still Maryland in trouble still  
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minden, Nevada
Posts: 2,292
Likes: 325
Liked 2,122 Times in 769 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TANKLEGACY View Post
And if you are a civilian with a fully automatic weapon...you either are rich as hell(cost around $14,000 for a worn out automatic rifle) and procured it properly with all the paperwork...
I not rich, and I didn't pay that much for my WW2 British Lanchester Mk. 1*, but I still can't believe that I paid what I consider a fortune for my gun. $14,000 is still on the low end for registered, transferable machineguns.

My Lanchester is definitely a weapon of war. I can attach a bayonet to my Lanchester, and when I run out of ammunition, I can start stabbing the enemy. The anti-gun loonies in my family have disowned me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trouble with Red Dot or Trouble with Eyes crghill Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 20 04-22-2013 07:54 AM
New from Maryland The Ambassdor New Members Introduction 14 04-17-2013 10:26 PM
Hello from Maryland Shinny New Members Introduction 12 10-15-2012 10:22 PM
New guy from Maryland Lostfantum New Members Introduction 9 09-17-2010 08:37 PM
New in Maryland Baltocass New Members Introduction 12 12-09-2009 10:52 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:53 AM.


© S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)