Second Amendment does not cover 'weapons of war,' US appeals court finds

2nd Amendment - Limits the government from infringing or restricting the ability of the people to protect themselves

I see no restriction of arms in the amendment which is the supreme law of the land:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

How will we fight a civil war!!!!!!!!!!!!?

stupid liberal terminology,next...

The courts can suck a dick.

Define 'war'

Left wing helmet fire ensues.

name one time a Barrett 50 cal was used in a crime, mass shooting, murder, or otherwise hostile non sporting, target event.

not once.

anywhere.

ever.

^^^THIS! Simple isn't it? Any "Judge" Ruling against the plain letter of Law(Constitution) should be brought up on charges of Treason!

Any weapon can be a weapon of war. That's what weapons are for.

how about they are wrong?

2nd amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

militia - defined ~ Would use weapons of war. BY definition:

A militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/ generally is an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of the fighting nobility class (e.g., knights or samurai).

Its EXACTLY what it does cover. Weapons of war. what else would a militia use?

NOPE you need to re-read it.

Even the dissenting judges are clueless on the 2nd Amendment, or crafting their words as cleverly as Scalia did in Heller to undermine the 2nd.

"For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland's law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home,” wrote Judge William Traxler in a dissent, calling for a stringent review of the decision.


Defending ones home is found NOWHERE in the 2nd amendment. These pukes are either completely illiterate OR intentionally killing the 2nd by a thousand cuts.

The RIGHT of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!

Wherever they got the notion that there's any alternative way of interpreting that, they are dead wrong.

Anyways, their ruling comes down to this:

Weapons which have no legal use in civilian life and are "Dangerous and Unusual" (as determined arbitrarily by someone?), are not covered under the 2nd Amendment.

The ruling is ultimately based on "Commentaries on the Laws of England" by William Blackstone in 1769.

So, the entire justification for their ruling revolves on British law commentary from 1769, before the country existed.

Believe it or not, many decisions are based on some of the oldest legal tradition and commentary. Rather than break with tradition and evaluate the laws as they currently stand, judges will use 300 years of legal precedent to justify rulings which have no other basis in reality.

Awww damn it.

Anyone wanna buy a mini?

It's the M134 Minigun, 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary, well cared for... maybe 5,000 round put through the pipe(s).

PM me.

:oh_geeze:

Just to be clear... I AM joking.

Last Edited by Mike Ehrmantraut on 02/23/2017 07:20 PM

Militia:

A group of private citizens who train for military duty in order to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency. A militia is distinct from regular military forces, which are units of professional soldiers maintained both in war and peace by the federal government.

in other words "A group of well regulated "Private Citizens" (no where does it say under the control of authority of any regulatory body. The 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear!

Civil war is not against the govt. It would be like against Americans vs Mexican living in US.

EFF a government!

#NotMyCourt

WOW!!! Your brain housing group is totally disassembled!

Here-Here!!!

Sorry this comment was meant for this dumbass

Anonymous Coward 4239944

The word assault is NOT an operational description of a weapon. I can assault you with a cup of coffee. I can assault you with a calculator. I can assault you with my fists, etc. The list goes on.

To assault something, is essentially describing an action, not the operational or physical makeup of that particular object. Once again the liberal left has no idea what they are talking about.

If you re trying to use logic with these cats forget it.

"...shall not be infringed."

It would be interesting to stake that man out over an red ant nest, just to illustrate the point that it's not the weapon that kills, it's the person.

Let me lay it out a little for some of these libs.

The oath of office as mandated in the Constitution reads in part "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"

It does NOT read - defend the government.

Next, the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Again, it is not about defending the government. It says right there in black and white - "a free State."

A free State in this context is the embodiment, the implementation of the Constitution.

A government that subverts and overrides the rights and freedoms enumerated (not granted) in the Constitution is antithetical to a free State.

Who has the right and the responsibility to defend (and if necessary restore) this free State? The people, by making sure the government follows the rule of law of the Constitution.

How? Failing redress through the soap, ballot and jury boxes, the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms of a sufficient quantity and quality to do so. (Shall not be infringed anyone?)

Last Edited by Coming Soon on 02/24/2017 01:01 AM