“The banned firearms [AR-15’s and AK-47’s] are not commonly used for self-defense, and more than ten rounds are rarely, if ever, required for self-defense. Thus, the banned firearms and magazines do not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection.” Pg. 24 of 74, under “Summary of Argument.”

AG Gansler goes on to argue that “The plaintiffs have failed to identify a single incident in which an individual in Maryland has used an assault weapon in self-defense, and Maryland law enforcement officers were similarly unaware of any such incident.” Pg. 36 of 74.

To clarify, the government of Maryland has just stated in an American court that semi-automatic rifles are not used for self-defense, and people do not required more than ten rounds to defend themselves, and therefore are not covered under the scope of the amendment that was put into the Constitution to ensure the people’s right to bear arms.

This statement, safely made by a man who would no longer hold the post of attorney general a week after the submission of this brief, begs the question of whether or not Maryland lawmakers and administrators watch the news, and it disregards on the basis of opinion the rulings of Heller and McDonald from the US Supreme Court.

In March of 2013, a student in New York used an AR-15 to defend himself and his roommates against a number of armed intruders..

In May of 2013 a North Carolina man used an AR-15 to defend himself against an early morning home invader.

In April of 2013 a gas station attendant and Iraq War veteran used an AR-15 in self-defense during an attempted robbery.

In January of 2014 a homeowner in Florida used an AK-47 to defend himself against three armed home invaders .

These stories exist and are not that uncommon, common enough for a cursory search by AG Gansler or his people to find out that while he may not be aware of AR-15’s being used for self-defense in Maryland, they certainly are being used in other states.

The author missed perhaps the most striking instance of self defense with an AR-15 (with multiple magazines), namely the example of Mr. Stephen Bayezes.  Furthermore, it’s obvious that the Maryland attorney general doesn’t care about consistency or correspondence with reality.  The Supreme Court has found in Tennessee versus Garner that law enforcement officers can only use a weapon in the same case that civilians can, i.e., self defense.  Yet the attorney general won’t argue that the police should have limited capacity magazines and no patrol rifles.  That’s because they don’t really believe the things they are saying.

But the main problem with both the attorney general’s brief and this short analysis at CDN is that the second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with self defense.  The best way to explain it for the attorney general’s office is this.  The second amendment doesn’t have to be invoked until the legislature passes totalitarian bills like this one, the governor signs these totalitarian bills into law, sniveling lackey attorneys write horrible briefs for the court to read, and awful judges accept them rather than hold the attorneys in contempt of court for submitting crap to the court docket.

The civilians have a remedy for such meddling foolishness on the part of the elite.  It’s called the second amendment, and the criminals upon which it is supposed to be used and to whom it applies are in government.  The constitution is a covenant – which includes both promises and consequences.  For whatever reason, the folks in Maryland haven’t seen fit to invoke this part of the governmental covenant yet, but no one can promise this will continue.