Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire AR ban upheld in Maryland

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Needs to get to the SCOTUS.

10-4 ruling, issued by the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond

Well, it IS Maryland - where virtually nothing re: firearms is legal..

So a federal appeals court has found the AR platform to be beyond protection of the 2A.

That's interesting because I thought this kind of situation was the whole purpose of the Second Amendment and AR-15.

So let me see the court's logic here..

Semi-auto handguns are protected by the 2nd Amendment according to Heller.
Semi-auto rifles are weapons of war and the 2nd Amendment cannot be extended to cover them according to Heller.

Umm..

We should be thankful the Dems are anti-gun. Otherwise they would probably have carried the presidential election in 2000 and 2016. The amazing thing is they are too stupid to see that none of their gun confiscation laws have had the slightest effect on crime.

Speaking of stupid, Martin O'Malley is one of the stupidest people in America.

That is also why it should go to the SCOTUS. Even if Miller were properly applied, the AR ban would fail. The 4th got it dead wrong; and, Miller needs to be overturned.

What y'all MD boys need to ban is Elijah Cummings!!!

Actually, it is now the entire 4th, in addition to the 2nd thanks to the NY SAFE Act and Bloomberg on both counts.

Sean, do you think it will go to SCOTUS?