|
|
08-06-2024, 11:54 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 1,196
Liked 6,043 Times in 1,290 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: 2,000
Likes: 1,556
Liked 4,320 Times in 1,332 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: 9,254
Likes: 21,565
Liked 12,680 Times in 5,722 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: 3,461
Likes: 1,086
Liked 3,655 Times in 1,544 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: 10,930
Likes: 18,863
Liked 26,092 Times in 7,270 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: 1,778
Likes: 4,288
Liked 7,383 Times in 1,407 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: 6,794
Likes: 477
Liked 16,965 Times in 3,343 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: 6,188
Likes: 12,837
Liked 13,820 Times in 3,467 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: 10,930
Likes: 18,863
Liked 26,092 Times in 7,270 Posts
|
|
Here's Mark Smith's take on this case.
__________________
213th FBINA
|
08-07-2024, 10:20 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 31,385
Likes: 61,558
Liked 55,134 Times in 17,174 Posts
|
|
FPC and SAF seem to be in the mix with all these lawsuits.
__________________
Just another brick in the wall
|
08-07-2024, 02:58 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: NE FL
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 1,556
Liked 4,320 Times in 1,332 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: 2,627
Likes: 3,085
Liked 12,699 Times in 1,951 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: 6,990
Likes: 3,740
Liked 9,937 Times in 3,740 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: 3,461
Likes: 1,086
Liked 3,655 Times in 1,544 Posts
|
|
__________________
NRA RSO
|
08-10-2024, 01:22 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 21,020
Likes: 26,197
Liked 31,182 Times in 11,569 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: 7,010
Likes: 2,037
Liked 5,846 Times in 2,943 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: 3,461
Likes: 1,086
Liked 3,655 Times in 1,544 Posts
|
|
short breakdown on what happened
__________________
NRA RSO
|
08-19-2024, 12:15 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Escaping CA to OR in 2024
Posts: 1,280
Likes: 1,240
Liked 1,621 Times in 649 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: 7,010
Likes: 2,037
Liked 5,846 Times in 2,943 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:
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|