Grrr…

And once again ‘activist’ judges are making stuff up on the fly…

Note that they do not accurately describe an actual ‘assault’ weapon, merely use the pat phrase (and quote Sandy Hook in the majority opinion)…

The ruling from the Richmond-based court goes further than other appellate courts that have reviewed similar laws in stating clearly that “assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment.” The majority opinion, written by Judge Robert B. King, refers to the banned firearms as “weapons of war” that the court says are most useful in the military.

In a strongly worded dissent, Judge William B. Traxler Jr. said his colleagues have “gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.”

Full article, HERE.

Once again, a democrat state has taken it on itself to determine what ‘rights’ their citizens have to self-defense, target shooting and hunting…

Now the ‘interesting’ question is, will they take those same guns and magazines away from the LEOs?

Is it time to rename the 4th Circuit to the 4th Circus???

Sigh…

 

Comments

Grrr… — 17 Comments

  1. If I have one “weapon of war” and some black robed clown determines I have to give up my “weapon of war” how many “weapons of war” have I?
    Answer: at least 3, I will go out now and get at least two more.

  2. “Is it time to rename the 4th Circuit to the 4th Circus???”

    Might as well; we’ve been referring to the 9th Circus that way for years.

    And the ruling could (and probably will) be interpreted to prohibit ownership of antique military firearms, as well. Never mind that they’re no longer “current issue” – they were, once upon a time, weapons of war.

  3. Didn’t ‘weapons of war’ come under the NFA decision as VALID for citizens in 1939?
    Apparently, these judges only review the decisions they like…

    gfa

    • Impeachment would do the trick. But the ultra-lib gang of fatheads in Congress – both Houses – would howl like gut shot Comanches.

  4. As I stated at another post on this subject, By this definition “most useful in military service,” I guess our hands and feet are also banned. The Warren Court over 50 years ago began the slippery slide to mediocrity of courts as a deliberative body. The legislating courts in this country need to be stopped. I would submit there is much more need for term limits for Federal Judges than there is for Federal Legislators. IMHO

  5. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577____ U.S.

    Justia Opinion Summary.

    The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” The court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” that stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” and that “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” The U.S. Supreme Court, per curiam, vacated, reiterating that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that it has rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.”

    From the 1939 Miller decision—

    “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.

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

    • Miller is as bad a decision and grasping for straws as the 4th circus decision.

  6. If these courts were in existence at time of drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, we would be speaking the kings English. The musket at that time was the military weapon of choice which, by these courts, would be prohibited to the people.

    These courts, supposedly distinguished in office, have succumbed to that tactic of the left by which manufacture of even the ridiculous they intend to flood the judicial system to such extent as to render it ineffective. It is tantamount to an entire circus court being vexatious. Let the reaping begin.

  7. Hey Old NFO;

    Well hopefully the supreme court will rectify this, and if they don’t there will be another law that I will ignore for I consider it “Immoral”.

    • Don’t hold your breath for any court to rectify anything. They are showing themselves more and more for what they are, judicial tyrants.

  8. Assault Weapon— any object used in attacking one human being by another human being. EX:Hammer,Screwdriver,Axe,Stick,2×4,4×4,Skillet,Pot,Chisel,Tire Iron,Rolled-up Magazine,Laptop Comp.,Typewriter or Keyboard,Tent Stake,Wooden Stake(vampire),Sword,Knife…I could go on but have I mentioned a firearm? NO! The LEARNED People are id 10 tees(idiots) in common sense. We need to Impeach those with no common sense.