http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...,7712641.story
http://www.scribd.com/doc/236628112/...urt-gun-ruling
I don't know if this thread will go anywhere, but I thought I'd see if anyone wants to discuss the ruling. If you read through the opinion you'll see that its absolutely dripping with the judge's personal anti-gun views. Its just filled with BS. Anti-gun groups are cited repeatedly as evidence, and we all know how honest they are. The pdf linked above at scribd.com isn't terribly long if you feel like skimming it. I'll quote some of the interesting/infuriating stuff. I really think this judge would rubber stamp just about any gun control law. Its pretty disgusting how our courts work.
Starting off with claims made by the state of MD:
Are "assault weapons" in common use? Hell no! In fact, they're extremely uncommon.
According to the defendants, by contrast, assault weapons comprise a small portion of the current civilian gun stock in the United States. (See Lawrence Tribe Testimony, ECF No. 44-74, at 24 (estimating that approximately seven million assault weapons are owned in the United States today); see also Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence Br., ECF No. 40, at 4, 6–7 (estimating that the number of assault weapons in the United States is closer to the number of machine guns than the number of handguns).) Koper estimates that, at the time of the 1994 federal ban, assault weapons comprised less than one percent of the civilian gun stock. (Koper Decl. ¶ 19.) Assuming that recent sales have increased the number of assault weapons in the current civilian market to nine million, such weapons would represent about three percent of the civilian gun stock. (See William J. Krouse, Cong. Research Serv.,Gun Control Legislation, ECF No. 44-28, at 8 (estimating that, by 2009, the total number of firearms available to U.S. civilians was approximately 310 million).) The defendants also assert that the absolute number of assault weapons far exceeds the number of people who own them. In recent decades, gun ownership in the United States has become increasingly concentrated; fewer households own firearms, but those households owning guns own more of them. (See Webster Decl. ¶¶ 13–14; see also NSSF Rep., ECF No. 44-75, at 13 (indicating that the average owner of modern sporting rifles had 2.6 such weapons in 2010 and 3.1 such weapons in 2013).) Using NSSF’s figure that the average assault weapons owner has 3.1 such weapons, this means less than 1% of Americans own an assault weapon. In Maryland specifically, from 1994 to 2012, there were a total of 604,051 transfers of regulated firearms, of which only 46,577 were assault weapons. (See Brady Decl., Ex. C.) Assuming again that the average assault weapons owner has 3.1 such weapons, this means approximately 15,000 Marylanders own 46,577 assault weapons.
WTF? They cite a Bushmaster advertisement:
On to the Court's statements.They assert that the banned firearms, which are substantially similar—and indeed, as discussed below, possibly more effective—in functioning, dangerousness, and killing capacity as their fully automatic counterparts, are military-style weapons designed for offensive use... see 2011 Bushmaster Product Catalogue, ECF No. 44-70, at 3 (advertising the Bushmaster ACR (adaptive combat rifle) as “the ultimate military combat weapons system” and “[b]uilt specifically for law enforcement and tactical markets”))
Should strict or intermediate scrutiny apply?
What does intermediate scrutiny mean?Applying that framework here, the court finds intermediate scrutiny is appropriate for assessing the constitutionality of Maryland’s ban because it does not seriously impact a person’s ability to defend himself in the home, the Second Amendment’s core protection. It does not ban the quintessential weapon—the handgun—used for self-defense in the home. Nor does it prevent an individual from keeping a suitable weapon for protection in the home. Therefore, although the bans remove a class of weapons that the plaintiffs desire to use for self-defense in the home, there is no evidence demonstrating their removal will significantly impact the core protection of the Second Amendment. Accordingly, intermediate scrutiny applies.
Will the AWB survive intermediate scrutiny?To survive intermediate scrutiny, the government must demonstrate that the laws at issue are “reasonably adapted to a substantial government interest.” The Fourth Circuit has made clear that intermediate scrutiny “does not require that a regulation be the least intrusive means of achieving the relevant government objective, or that there be no burden whatsoever on the individual right in question.” Nor does the fit have to be perfect. Instead, Maryland’s interests only must be “substantially served” by the law.
Translation: DERP DERP DERP DERPTurning to the record in this case, Maryland’s ban on assault long guns and LCMs survives intermediate scrutiny. The evidence demonstrates that assault weapons have several military-style features making them especially dangerous to law enforcement and civilians.(ATF, Importability of Certain Semiautomatic Rifles, ECF No. 44-14, at 6–7 (describing the military features of semi-automatic assault rifles); 1998 ATF Study at 1 (same).) The AR-15, for example, is essentially the same as the military’s M-16 rifle, with the exception that the AR-15 is semi-automatic instead of fully automatic. (See Johnson Decl. ¶ 36 (“The only difference between automatic firearms actually used by the military, such as the M16, and assault weapons covered by the ban, such as the AR-15, is that the M16 is fully automatic.”))Having the features of military weapons, assault weapons are designed to cause extensive damage and can fire many rounds in quick succession, from a greater distance and with greater accuracy than many other types of guns—including, in some respects, their automatic counterparts.
It actually continues with several more paragraphs of derp about how unusually dangerous "assault weapons" are. I obviously won't quote all of it, but isn't the following the exact opposite of the truth? But I guess that's what happens when you cite the kittening Brady Campaign (and isn't the FOP pretty anti-gun too?).
The Court's conclusion:Assault weapons pose a heightened risk to civilians as well. For civilians in their homes, the penetrating capabilities of bullets fired from assault weapons pose a higher risk than that posed by other firearms. They can penetrate walls and other home structures and remain more effective than penetrating bullets fired from other guns, endangering those in neighboring rooms, apartments, or even other homes.(Brady Ctr. to Prevent Gun Violence, Assault Weapons “Mass Produced Mayhem”
, ECF No. 44-58, at 16 (citing a statement by Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, that he would not be surprised if a bullet fired from an AK-47 went through six walls of conventional drywall in a home)
In summary, the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which represents the considered judgment of this State’s legislature and its governor, 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. The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Accordingly, the law is constitutional and will be upheld.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Stephen
I meant it to be a critical evaluation....