Posts Tagged appeals court

Court Says “Weapons of War” Not Covered Under Second Amendment

From The Trace:

Writing for the 10-4 majority, Judge Robert King of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said that the landmark Heller v. District of Columbia decision rendered in 2008 explicitly allows governments to regulate firearms similar in design and function to those issued to members of the military.

The decision marks the fifth time that a federal appeals court has upheld a state assault weapons law, but it goes further than those previous decisions. It is the first to exclude AR-15s and other similar guns from Second Amendment protection on the grounds that they are virtually indistinguishable from weapons of war. The court found that such designation overrides considerations of the common usage or suitability for home self-defense of a gun like the AR-15.

The judges in this case are choosing to be willfully ignorant of the weapons used at the time of the Constitution. There was no difference between arms used in the military/militia and those used for hunting or self defense. Townships had their own armories stocked with cannons (the equivalent of modern artillery). Their argument that the lethality of the weapons disqualifies the weapons is exactly what you would expect from elites in positions of power. They fear the power that the people would wield if allowed to keep and bear such weapons. On another point I would like to know how many of these judges have ever shot or held a gun, let alone own one.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Guns Allowed In Airports, If You Have A Concealed Carry Permit

From KMOV St. Louis:

A recent Missouri Court of Appeals decision has clarified the law, saying it is not a criminal offense to carry a firearm into the airport or through airport security if you are a concealed carry permit holder.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Blueprints Of Guns Not Allowed, Court Says

From Ars Technica:

In a 2-1 decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was not persuaded that Defense Distributed’s right to free speech under the First Amendment outweighs national security concerns.

Ordinarily, of course, the protection of constitutional rights would be the highest public interest at issue in a case. That is not necessarily true here, however, because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security. Indeed, the State Department’s stated interest in preventing foreign nationals—including all manner of enemies of this country—from obtaining technical data on how to produce weapons and weapon parts is not merely tangentially related to national defense and national security; it lies squarely within that interest.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Chicago Gun Ban Case

From Bloomberg:

A Highland Park resident and the Illinois State Rifle Association challenged the city’s 2013 law. They argued in their appeal that lower courts are engaging in “massive resistance” to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that said the Constitution protects individual gun rights.

“In the seven years since that opinion was handed down, the lower courts have assiduously worked to sap it of any real meaning,” the appeal argued. “They have upheld severe restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms that would be unthinkable in the context of any other constitutional right.”

 

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Court Strikes Down Illinois’s Concealed Carry Law

From Chicago-Sun Times:

In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a divided federal appeals court in Chicago Tuesday tossed the state’s ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois’ Legislature 180 days to craft a law legalizing concealed carry.

, , , , , ,

No Comments