Federal Judge Upholds Maryland “Assault Weapons” Ban
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 3 months ago
A federal judge has upheld a package of strict firearms regulations that went into effect in Maryland last year.
In a 47-page opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake said the law “seeks to address a serious risk of harm to law enforcement officers and the public from the greater power to injure and kill presented by assault weapons and large capacity magazines.”
[ … ]
Judge Blake, appointed by President Clinton, agreed with lawyers for the state, who held that assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms.” She also pointed out that the plaintiffs could not produce a single example in which an assault weapon or more than 10 rounds of ammunition were “used or useful” in an instance of self-defense in Maryland.
The opinion cites statistics showing that ownership of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines is comparatively rare and yet they are “disproportionately represented in mass shootings” as well as the murders of law-enforcement personnel.
“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,” Judge Blake wrote.
These things simply aren’t true. See my mass shootings research. These incidents are primarily done with guys toting multiple firearms (usually handguns, but shotguns have also been used) and multiple magazines. Reloading is quick and easy, as mass shooters know.
Furthermore, I can point to Mr. Stephen Bayezes for an incident where an AR-15 and multiple magazines had to be used in self defense. This was South Carolina, but if the judge had turned to the pages of American Rifleman every month, she would have seen the multiple reports of people defending themselves using all sorts of firearms. There are many examples in Maryland.
But this isn’t about self defense. It’s just a continuation of the same sort of fabricated reasoning that grips our judicial system on guns. The second amendment has to do with self defense only insofar as it pertains to amelioration of tyranny.
These are scary words for collectivist judges like her. None of this matters. She won’t get any of our guns, and if you are an owner of a weapon capable of holding more than ten rounds in the magazine, keep it. If you turn it in, you are siding with the collectivists. Maryland will pay for their sins.
On August 13, 2014 at 9:18 am, Paul B said:
Never re-elect a judge. they get big heads setting up in the courtroom and we do not need people like that legislating from the bench.
On August 13, 2014 at 11:56 am, Archer said:
The mental gymnastics required for this decision deserve an Olympic gold medal. She somehow starts with “the most popular rifle in America” and ends with failing the “in common use for lawful purposes” test put forth in Heller.
The numbers she quoted were equally flawed. Starting with the assumption (a big one, at that) that the rifles are owned by less than 1% of the population, and stating that they’re used in 3% of shootings (where did THAT number come from, I wonder?), she finds that they’re “disproportionately” used in crime, and thus there exists a clear public safety benefit to banning them. GIGO.
Not that it matters. The people who have them largely won’t be giving them up. This will be appealed. Not that she’ll face sanctions, or disciplinary actions, or anything….
On August 13, 2014 at 1:03 pm, BradenLynch said:
I would like to see judges removed from the bench when they offer rulings that a common person can see conflicts with the Constitution. Seriously if she is so dumb as to not be able to read the plain text of the BOR, she has no business being a judge.
All Constitutional questions need to be addressed by strict scrutiny. It is the highest law of the land and the implications for mistakes by activist judges are huge.
Finally, I do not see anywhere in the Constitution that “evil black rifles” are extra special exemptions from the Second Amendment. The whole point of the Second Amendment is for citizens to have access to comparable firearms to the military and police, so that if, and when, we have to start shooting we can depose people like this judge and replace her with someone who can read the restored Constitution.
She would probably gasp at that notion since she must think she is better than us as an elite. Sorry, it’s rule of law, not rule of man, dear.
On August 13, 2014 at 2:57 pm, Archer said:
“Sorry, it’s rule of law, not rule of man, dear.”
To which I can see her respond, in cheesy Lord of the Rings style, “I am no man.”
Her whole “reasoning,” opinion, and decision contradict in every way SCOTUS precedents. I mean, even the Miller decision, wherein short-barreled shotguns were found to not be protected by the Second Amendment, was based on SBSs not being particularly suitable for militia purposes. It was erroneous – SBSs have been used in military operations for certain purposes – but the precedent is that anything suitable for the militia is expressly protected. Her finding is that “assault weapons” can be banned because they’re lethal, easy-to-use, and can accept “high-capacity” magazines – but that contradicts Miller because those exact features are what make them useful for the militia.
It’s a TERRIBLE decision, but she won’t be reprimanded at all. It’s a lifetime appointment, no accountability.
On August 13, 2014 at 7:55 pm, BradenLynch said:
Love the LOTR quote! That is how her little pea-brain would work.
I appreciated your “mental gymnastics” imagery, which is spot on.
Her excuses why “assault weapons” should be banned are exactly those reasons why I would want them. I want lethal (I’m not going to tickle the home intruders) and the ease of use and enough ammunition in the gun to make the bad guys go away are features, not bugs.
On August 14, 2014 at 11:45 am, Archer said:
Precisely! The words, “Dang, I wish my gun was less effective, harder to use, and held less ammunition,” have been uttered by no gun fight or home invasion survivor, ever.
Ditto for, “Aww, man! I wish someone would have banned this gun so I couldn’t have used it to stop that guy from [attacking/raping/killing] me.”
And no Marine, soldier, or Nat’l Guard “citizen-soldier” has ever come home from Iraq or Afghanistan saying, “I wish we’d been limited to muzzle-loading black-powder rifles, like the Founders intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights.”
These phrases have never been said, and will never be said, because they are completely ridiculous. However, that is the world this judge wants for us.