|
 |

08-06-2024, 11:54 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 1,230
Liked 6,350 Times in 1,356 Posts
|
|
Interestingly, the M1A rifle is on the ban list but the M1 Garand is specifically exempted. The M1 Carbine is not listed and would appear not to qualify as a “copycat” either. Both pretty good ol’ rifles for defensive use. “Lists” like this are so stupid.
__________________
Everybody could shoot
|

08-07-2024, 06:59 AM
|
 |
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: NE FL
Posts: 2,126
Likes: 1,707
Liked 4,643 Times in 1,423 Posts
|
|
Judges do like to write. Why use just a few words to get your point across when thousands will do and a whole dictionary is going to waste.
__________________
"Your other right........."
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|

08-07-2024, 07:05 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 10,344
Likes: 26,088
Liked 14,600 Times in 6,510 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordson
Judges do like to write. Why use just a few words to get your point across when thousands will do and a whole dictionary is going to waste.
|
Goes back to all those college term papers, thesis, and high school and middle school assignments that had a requirement for word count.
Is anyone really surprised that the 4th Circus upheld bans on weapons in common use by citizens?
__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA
|

08-07-2024, 07:23 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,477
Likes: 1,173
Liked 3,674 Times in 1,552 Posts
|
|
The key takeaway is that this is the first fully adjudicated case of an assault weapons ban. The next step is SCOTUS. The Supreme Court said in a warning to the 7th Circuit (directed at the Chicago/Illinois ban lawsuits) that SCOTUS was watching, and if they didn't get it right, SCOTUS would correct it for them. This case will beat them to SCOTUS. I have every reason to expect this case to be heard by SCOTUS in the 2024/25 session. They should be applying for cert in the coming weeks.
The warning to the 7th Circuit was part of the denial of cert sent down to the 7th in June.
The best of this ruling is the dissents. It was a 9 to 6 ruling. Far from unanimous.
__________________
NRA RSO
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|

08-07-2024, 08:41 AM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Nevada
Posts: 11,741
Likes: 19,973
Liked 28,313 Times in 7,845 Posts
|
|
Yep, this one is now ripe for picking; the case SCOTUS has been patiently waiting for. It’ll be Maryland and the 4th, who are responsible for no more weapons/mag bans.
__________________
213th FBINA
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|

08-07-2024, 09:35 AM
|
 |
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 2,013
Likes: 4,830
Liked 8,318 Times in 1,604 Posts
|
|
And how much time, and how many (hundreds of) thousands of citizens' dollars will it take to get this blatantly unconstitutional decision reversed?
Even if SCOTUS is harshly critical of the Circuit Court for giving them the finger, there will be no real consequence, and they will be on to the next case that tramples the rights of citizens.
As long as the antis are using our own money to grind us down, and suffer ZERO consequences, it will never stop.
|
The Following 6 Users Like Post:
|
|

08-07-2024, 09:40 AM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,851
Likes: 477
Liked 17,160 Times in 3,380 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH4
Yep, this one is now ripe for picking; the case SCOTUS has been patiently waiting for. It’ll be Maryland and the 4th, who are responsible for no more weapons/mag bans.
|
I do not know if it is part of the record, but on the Maryland list there are many not banned semi-auto rifles that for all intents and purposes are the same as banned semi-auto rifles
List here
If I were arguing the case I would try to bring out that the law makes no sense because semi-auto rifles that are banned are basically the same as many semi-auto rifles that are not banned
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
Last edited by bushmaster1313; 08-07-2024 at 09:41 AM.
|

08-07-2024, 09:42 AM
|
 |
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Western ,Ma.
Posts: 6,330
Likes: 13,052
Liked 14,388 Times in 3,572 Posts
|
|
What does it cost ?
With Bruen and this nothing.
__________________
Paul
S&WCA #2726
|

08-07-2024, 10:19 AM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Nevada
Posts: 11,741
Likes: 19,973
Liked 28,313 Times in 7,845 Posts
|
|
Here's Mark Smith's take on this case.
__________________
213th FBINA
|

08-07-2024, 10:20 AM
|
 |
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 32,778
Likes: 67,066
Liked 58,811 Times in 18,299 Posts
|
|
FPC and SAF seem to be in the mix with all these lawsuits.
__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.
|

08-07-2024, 02:58 PM
|
 |
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: NE FL
Posts: 2,126
Likes: 1,707
Liked 4,643 Times in 1,423 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bushmaster1313
I do not know if it is part of the record, but on the Maryland list there are many not banned semi-auto rifles that for all intents and purposes are the same as banned semi-auto rifles
List here
If I were arguing the case I would try to bring out that the law makes no sense because semi-auto rifles that are banned are basically the same as many semi-auto rifles that are not banned
|
Just checking the list. SA M1A Loaded is banned because it is a “Copy of enumerated banned weapon”. However, the SA M1A Standard is not mentioned. So is it banned or not? The Poly M14 (Chinese copy of the SA M1A) is not banned and the Norinco M14 (another Chinese copy) is not mentioned at all. It is confusing, arbitrary and borders on the irrational.
__________________
"Your other right........."
Last edited by fordson; 08-07-2024 at 05:43 PM.
|

08-07-2024, 05:40 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 3,183
Liked 13,404 Times in 2,056 Posts
|
|
No other outcome could be expected from the Fourth Circus Court of Apples.
__________________
Bill
|

08-07-2024, 07:46 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,560
Likes: 4,314
Liked 11,096 Times in 4,158 Posts
|
|
There ain't nothing that would entice ne to visit MD. Never was.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|

08-07-2024, 07:54 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,477
Likes: 1,173
Liked 3,674 Times in 1,552 Posts
|
|
__________________
NRA RSO
|

08-10-2024, 01:22 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 22,361
Likes: 29,194
Liked 33,779 Times in 12,480 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordson
Just checking the list. SA M1A Loaded is banned because it is a “Copy of enumerated banned weapon”. However, the SA M1A Standard is not mentioned. So is it banned or not? The Poly M14 (Chinese copy of the SA M1A) is not banned and the Norinco M14 (another Chinese copy) is not mentioned at all. It is confusing, arbitrary and borders on the irrational.
|
Just goes to prove that like most state legislatures, Maryland's knows sod all about guns.
__________________
Release the Kraken
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|

08-13-2024, 09:44 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,496
Likes: 2,391
Liked 6,692 Times in 3,306 Posts
|
|
I read through the list in the 2nd link in post 1 and am rather confused. I'd like to see their definition of "folding stock". A folding stock is not a telescoping stock. I also looked at a couple of manufacturers listings and they get down to manufacturers stock numbers in some cases. Most folks-LLEA included- have no idea of stock numbers and likely have no way to figure out if an item is banned or not. Probably just assume it's banned.
|

08-18-2024, 07:50 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,477
Likes: 1,173
Liked 3,674 Times in 1,552 Posts
|
|
short breakdown on what happened
__________________
NRA RSO
|

08-19-2024, 12:15 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Escaping CA to OR - soon!
Posts: 1,421
Likes: 1,356
Liked 1,884 Times in 744 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH4
|
Am so glad Attorney Smith openly made the comparison between anti-gunners today and segregationists of the 1950's and 60's. Absolutely no difference, in spirit and tactics, between the two groups contriving to use the courts and corrupt the law in delaying or denying a fundamental right counter to a SCOTUS decision. They might as well all sign off on a "Liberal Manifesto".
Last edited by dsf; 08-19-2024 at 09:23 PM.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|

08-22-2024, 08:22 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,496
Likes: 2,391
Liked 6,692 Times in 3,306 Posts
|
|
Guys, there's troubling stuff in that 4 Circuit decision. The main thrust of their argument is that since military manuals note that the M4/M16 is most effective in semi-automatic operation, the difference in fire control systems between the military weapons and the civilian version is moot. And, that they thereby are dangerous weapons unsuitable for self defense and not covered under Bruen. Not that they know a bleeping thing about self defense.
Hope none of those folks ever see any videos of Jerry Miculek or they'll ban revolvers.
ETA: The decision also goes on to claim a vast criminal use and number of folks done to death by said items. Funny, they don't consider banning bare hands and feet as well as various household items that have higher tolls.
It does seem to be strange that they find a tool with an improved ability to neutralize a deadly threat to be incompatible with self defense. Unless they want increased collateral damage to inspire further restrictions.
Last edited by WR Moore; 08-23-2024 at 12:24 PM.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
 |
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|