Federal Judge Rules AR-15′s Are “Dangerous and Unusual,” Not Protected by 2A

[dkf]

Judges no longer care about law, they want to impose their opinion on others with an iron fist.

[Manxdriver]

Political activists are not judges, they're Political Activists. Remember how fragile America is ......1 SCOTUS "judge" retirement or death away.......ONE

Allow me to complete that last sentence: away from a massive reset onto the correct path for America according to the U.S. Constitution!

[GeneCC]

This is why you do not place your Faith in the Courts.... this could as easily be a Majority Opinion of the US Supreme Court.

What would we do then?

Judges should interpret the Law not make it.

We each need to change people's minds around us. We need to vote. We need to get people off of their behinds to vote.

We need to quit letting people like this "Judge" dominate the discussion with their half baked reasoning.

Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.

First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.

The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.

As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.

Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court-...2nd-amendment/

[GeneCC]

If she had ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs people here would celebrate her. They would appreciate her.

Judges should not have this kind of power. Such power "cuts both ways".

We need to change legislatures. We need to change debates. We need to quit letting the Gun Control Lobby pick the language, pick the words and make us justify doing things that do not harm others.

[ALS]

Like they say elections have consequences. She is a Clinton appointee and is 64 years old so we're stuck with the woman for another ten years or so.

Looking at her picture she looks like a carpet munching liberal. Didn't see anywhere that she was married or had kids. I may have missed that point in my quick search.

[Berks_Iraq_Vet]

Her decision flies in the face of Miller. The reasoning in Miller was that sawed-off shotguns weren't militia weapons and therefor weren't protected by the 2A.

Here's hoping she comes down with a raging case of cancer. And before anyone admonishes me, I always wish for the enemies of liberty to die long, painful deaths due to incurable disease. It's my thing.

Agree. A pox upon her and all of her ilk.

[Deleted]

This is why you do not place your Faith in the Courts.... this could as easily be a Majority Opinion of the US Supreme Court.

What would we do then?

Judges should interpret the Law not make it.

We each need to change people's minds around us. We need to vote. We need to get people off of their behinds to vote.

We need to quit letting people like this "Judge" dominate the discussion with their half baked reasoning.



http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court-...2nd-amendment/

Here is the verbiage regarding the Miller decision...

"Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

I think it's going to be hard to argue that the AR-15 is not "in common use"... it's "America's Gun" at this point.. it's ingrained in our culture. Common sense dictates it's no more dangerous or unusual than any other firearm. Hopefully SCOTUS can grip common sense.

[Qtrborecrazy]

If she had ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs people here would celebrate her. They would appreciate her.

Judges should not have this kind of power. Such power "cuts both ways".

We need to change legislatures. We need to change debates. We need to quit letting the Gun Control Lobby pick the language, pick the words and make us justify doing things that do not harm others.

But their friends in MSM will not allow honest debate or stray from the agenda. Our enemy is MSM.

[fortysix]

I just re-read the ruling. I don't see how they arrived at the conclusion that the weapon is more dangerous than any other weapon. The statistics on *gun violence* put all guns other than shotguns and pistols at a very very small portion of all events - making the AR15 itself a small subset of that. If it's inherently more dangerous than the others, then it must have some redeeming qualities that prevent its use in more homicides, despite it supposedly being more dangerous.

I know, the claim was that the weapon is more for offense than defense. This is entirely true, and I challenge anyone to dispute this. However, the Second Amendment does not say anything about whether the weapons allowed are to be offensive nor defensive, nor if they are to be used to hunt, protect the home, invade Britain, the Amendment says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

And again, I don't see how the firearm is unusual. Its features are copied by thousands of other similar or even very dissimilar firearms. The court suggests that ownership of the arm accounts for 3% of all firearms ownership, and that ownership is concentrated in 1% of all owners. Fine. Can we go down the list of every other firearm and find one whose ownership is more widespread? My guesses would be like the Mossberg 500, the Remington 700 (so many variants!), maybe the Beretta 92, maybe the Glock 19? I can't imagine there is any arm held more widely, despite this one accounting for only 3% of all arms owned. That would then make it the largest group, thus, not unusual.

Just because the judge is askerrrrrd of black guns with shoulder things that go up, and just because the judge doesn't have any friends that own them doesn't make it more dangerous or more unusual than any other. This ruling is just about as arbitrary as it can get.

[ChemicalReaper]

Here's hoping she comes down with a raging case of cancer. And before anyone admonishes me, I always wish for the enemies of liberty to die long, painful deaths due to incurable disease. It's my thing.

The problem with wishing upon them a long, painful death is that you give them the courtesy of having all that extra time to cause more damage.