Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

Inigoes said:

That article is all over the map discussing previous court arguments, and not to mention Colin Noir talking about the 7CA assault weapons ban, which further clouds the article.

I am thinking the author was trying to give a history lesson, while mixing in current events. The author did a very poor job trying to convey the historical information.

Click to expand...

No human author, it was generated by AI.

Steel Hunter said:

Yup. In summary of case for those not following as closely:
4th Circuit En Banc hearing is March 20th
Also while we are waiting, a petition for Writ of Certiorari (No. 23-863) has been filed with SCOTUS in attempt to force 4th Circuit to do something. The idea is that if 4th Circuit doesn't issue an opinion after En Banc inevitably does nothing, the case has possibility of being taken back up by SCOTUS for the 2nd time. The petition was formally docketed 02/12/24. It may or may not be distributed for conference. My guess is SCOTUS won't touch it unless they need to following En Banc decision.

Click to expand...

I’m cautiously optimistic that they’ll schedule it for arguments and tell the 4th, you’ve got till we decide if we’re going to hear it to make a decision.
It’s been here once and we gave you instructions, now it’s back, so let’s see if you understand the instructions.

I say that because of the 9ths ruling today that Hawaii can indeed ban butterfly knives and the argument is basically going to be “this case is about semi automatic firearms in common use owned for any and all lawful purpose, but there’s more at stake considering a state is trying to ban a knife. An arm is an arm, where and when does it end, you have the power now to stop this.”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dblas said:

No human author, it was generated by AI.

Click to expand...

That was my reaction when I saw this article, too. I see the same thing on YouTube all the time now.

Bob A said:

I try to avoid arguing with imbeciles, though God knows it's hard to avoid.

I blame the public school system, and respect those who managed to learn to think despite such an impediment.

Click to expand...

Understand. That being said:

1. Sadly, not all of the people who support AWBs do so because they're under the mistaken impression that 2A only protects hunting. Many of them think that the 2A should be repealed altogether. Anecdotally, I feel as though I see more and more gun controllers arguing for the 2A to go away.

2. Our side has plenty of imbeciles, too, who have drank the Kool Aid that "there's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'" and can't do anything besides repeat that talking point.

Biggfoot44 said:

( Legitimately among gun people )
It's more modular
It's potentially more adjustable . if your family members range from 6' 4" to 4' 10"
In recent years the economics have flipped upside down

( Hypothetical inexperienced , untrained , non gun people)

They look cool
Conditioned by mass media , entertainment, and popular culture that AR are evil, wicked, mean , and nasty , and Extra Killy .

***************

A Mini- 14 is actually more natural and intuitive for newbie to make hits . Hand and arm positions more natural and intuitive . Closer relationship between line of sight and bore line ( impact) . Overall , closer the hands , bore , and eyes , the better and quicker to hit where you're looking . ( Not talking 300 yd group sizes , but making hits on life size targets , usually ducking and scrambling , at distances typical for such events .)

Click to expand...

All of what you're saying about the Mini-14 is based on the assumption that we're talking about a shooter who is trying to make aimed, accurate shots, versus fire a lot of rounds quickly and inflict a lot of casualties (i.e., a mass shooter). Indeed, all of the above is a reminder that the Mini-14 started out as a varmint-hunting rifle (albeit with a design lineage originating in the M1 Garand and M14, both military rifles).

Biggfoot44 said:

For non skilled shooters , any type of handgun , totally sucks compared to virtually any shoulder fired weapon beyond tobacco spitting distance , if not bad breath distance .. ( Disregarding " arm braces " to make ersatz SBR , in which case they are worse than typical rifles of a certain style , see above )

Click to expand...

Agreed. I've exposed several novices in my family to firearms, and they always like my AR-15s better than my handguns, for exactly that reason.

Biggfoot44 said:

IF the hypothetical anti spcial ne'er do well has or sets out to gain a minimal modicum of handgun skill ( let's say equivalent to a passing score on Md W&C Qual ) , they will be able to make far more Hits with a " regular normal " pistol vs ( something I won't even give their own name , adapted from various other things that you know what I mean ) ..

Click to expand...

Disagree. And anyway, that's not the M.O. of said ne'er-do-wellers when their specific goal is to inflict a lot of casualties in a short time.

I have more than a modicum of handgun training at this point in my life, and I'm still pretty sure that if I lined up a bunch of targets, I'd make a lot more hits - in a shorter time - with my "assault pistol" than any of my "normal" pistols.

BurkeM said:

how else do you account for the popularity of the AR over the Mini-14?

Cost and availability.

Click to expand...

Wasn't always that way. I'm old enough to remember when you saw equal numbers of ARs and Mini-14s at FFLs, and the Mini-14s were always anywhere from $200-$400 less than the ARs. But that was 20-25 years ago. Obviously, the Mini-14's popularity has been stagnant since then, while the AR's popularity has increased exponentially. So, yes, now you see many budget and lower mid-tier AR models that cost way less than Mini-14s, based on sheer proliferation alone.

smokey said:

Thread turned dildos. All gun laws are unconstitutional. There should be no legal definition of "Assault weapon" because any gun tossed in this nebulous category is an arm protected by the 2a. "Assault weapon" only exists as a political/legal term in order to infringe on 2a protected rights, so the term itself lacks all validity. "Assault rifles" ARE a thing, named for a specific military purpose.

Click to expand...

I know that you probably tuned out a couple pages back, but to refresh you on where we're at - "assault weapon" is a term that our side openly embraced, up until about the late-1980s, when we recognized that it was being abused by the gun controllers. So what you have said is simply not true, and anyone who's familiar with the literature of the time will know this. See attached image as proof (and BTW, both of the guns that you see on the cover are Title I firearms - the full-size Uzi is a semi-auto carbine with the non-functional display barrel that gives it an SMG appearance).

Hey guys. I seemed to have taken a wrong turn and gotten into a different thread. Can anyone tell me where the AWB case thread went?

sleev-les said:

Hey guys. I seemed to have taken a wrong turn and gotten into a different thread. Can anyone tell me where the AWB case thread went?

Click to expand...

The 4th Circuit seems to have misplaced their paperwork and will be working as hard they can to find it.

Apd09 said:

I’m cautiously optimistic that they’ll schedule it for arguments and tell the 4th, you’ve got till we decide if we’re going to hear it to make a decision.
It’s been here once and we gave you instructions, now it’s back, so let’s see if you understand the instructions.

Click to expand...

Sadly, though, while that's obviously SCOTUS' position, they're also not eager to lay down the law. Even if it means that several years go by where we're all stuck abiding by unconstitutional laws...

MattFinals718 said:

I know that you probably tuned out a couple pages back, but to refresh you on where we're at - "assault weapon" is a term that our side openly embraced, up until about the late-1980s, when we recognized that it was being abused by the gun controllers. So what you have said is simply not true, and anyone who's familiar with the literature of the time will know this. See attached image as proof (and BTW, both of the guns that you see on the cover are Title I firearms - the full-size Uzi is a semi-auto carbine with the non-functional display barrel that gives it an SMG appearance). View attachment 456180

Click to expand...

"...exists..."

sleev-les said:

Hey guys. I seemed to have taken a wrong turn and gotten into a different thread. Can anyone tell me where the AWB case thread went?

Click to expand...

It’s long gone. Now we’re trying to figure out the definition of assault weapon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rbird7282 said:

It’s long gone. Now we’re trying to figure out the definition of assault weapon.

Click to expand...

Well, if that's the only reason this thread is being sidetracked for 20 pages, here:

https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/what-is-the-definition-of-assault-weapon-officially.282175/

Mark Smith just posted reason why he’s optimistic they’ll take Bianca.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

smokey said:

"...exists..."

Click to expand...

Beg your pardon?

E.Shell said:

Well, if that's the only reason this thread is being sidetracked for 20 pages, here:

https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/what-is-the-definition-of-assault-weapon-officially.282175/

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm more than happy to make the case over there.

Matt's post is too long to edit down to one sentence to quote , so I'll retype it , hopefully w/o typo :

" vs fire a lots of rounds quickly , to create a lot of casualties , e.g.a Mass Shooter "

But my very point was spraying mag dumps creates lots of panic from the noise , but is very inefficient at creating Actual Casualties .

The best modern example in modern era was the Israeli reservest who snapped , and wanted to kill an entire mosque during services . Even though he had a full auto M-16 , he fired individual shots , at controlled pace , aiming , and stacked up a huge number of actual dead casualties .

Take it to the other thread

eruby said:

@Boats

Spot on



IMO, nothing should be banned, and no one should be prohibited

Click to expand...

100%

The court is asking for brief's on when common use steps in, step one or two and who has the burden of proof based on bruen.

You ask me its on the first step, and obviously it falls on the gov to disprove common use is covered in Caetano v. Massachusetts.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...Reguesting_Supplemental_Briefs.pdf?1709675354

scottyfz6 said:

The court is asking for brief's on when common use steps in, step one or two and who has the burden of proof based on bruen.

You ask me its on the first step, and obviously it falls on the gov to disprove common use is covered in Caetano v. Massachusetts.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...Reguesting_Supplemental_Briefs.pdf?1709675354

Click to expand...

Yep, that is one step too many according to Bruen!!!

Inigoes said:

Yep, that is one step too many according to Bruen!!!

Click to expand...

That was my thought but realized step 1 is does the law impact the second amendment at textual level.

If so, step 2 the burden shifts to the government to show the law has an analogous law from history.

But it is at step 2 because the burden is on the government to show this not in common use according to Heller and based on Caetano common use is 200,000 owned by the people.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mark Smith weighing in.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk