Yet another one for SCOTUS

[Subdeacon Joe]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court-cases/breaking-federal-judge-rules-ar-15s-are-dangerous-and-unusual-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment/

 

In what looks to be a terrible ruling for Maryland gun owners a federal judge has essentially ruled that guns that were regulated by the state of Maryland last year, including AR-15 and AK style rifles (as well as other magazine fed, semi-auto rifles with certain features), “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms,” according to a 47 page opinion by U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake.

The case in question is Kolbe et al v. O’Malley et al which named numerous plaintiffs including the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), among others which challenged the constitutionality of Maryland’s strict new gun laws.

Here are some of Blake’s other comments [emphasis mine],

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.

[Blackwater 53393]

That one won't pass the smell test at the next level!

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

This ruling appears to be at odds with a decision confirming the ATF could under the NFA regulate sawed off shotgun, that basically said, IIRC, that a sawed off shotgun bore no resemblance to a weapon that the militia would need. (I have heard that tunnel rats in Vietnam used them.) I wish I had more info so I could cite it more properly.

Think it was at least 30 years ago.

[Subdeacon Joe]

This ruling appears to be at odds with a decision confirming the ATF could under the NFA regulate sawed off shotgun, that basically said, IIRC, that a sawed off shotgun bore no resemblance to a weapon that the militia would need. (I have heard that tunnel rats in Vietnam used them.) I wish I had more info so I could cite it more properly.

Think it was at least 30 years ago.

 

That's the 1939 Miller Decision, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939),. Miller, I believe, had been killed before SCOTUS heard arguments in his case. Part of that decision reads:

 

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

 

The Court could not take judicial notice because no evidence was presented to support Miller. But, in WWI, the federal government had purchased ~30,000 short barreled shotguns for use in the trenches.

 

Note how that is worded, though. It implies that if Miller had been able to show that it bore some "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" the court would have upheld the lower courts ruling and the NFA, 1934 would have been dead in the water.

 

I believe the entire decision can be read here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174