Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2016, 01:39 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,822,024 times
Reputation: 6509

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Some of the issues were the allowance of retired law enforcement to possess assault weapons but not citizens - Equal Protection Clause. Also the fact that they used the words "or copies" to try to capture similar guns.


Some interesting comments from the dissenters, I don't see how you make a case for the banning the M16 while allowing the AR-15.


"Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s FSA are exceptionally lethal weapons of war. In fact, the most popular of the prohibited semiautomatic rifles, the AR-15, functions almost identically to the military’s fully automatic M16.


In these circumstances, I am entirely unable to discern a reasonable basis for saying that, although the M16 is a dangerous and unusual weapon, the AR-15 and similar arms are not.
Pursuant to the majority’s view, because M16s have long been outlawed while AR-15s have in some places been allowed, the AR-15 enjoys Second Amendment protection that the M16 is denied. "
An m16 and an ar15 are completely different. It is like comparing a car to an remote controlled rc car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2016, 01:42 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Great but This will eventually make it to SCOTUS and who knows what they will do.
One may not like what they will do. Either way, it's not a real loss for only one side. No one is going to turn anything in even if the courts would rule with the state and if those who wish to restrict the constitutional rights of others aren't careful you may get something like the Citizen United ruling where the courts rule nearly all regulations illegal.

This is a fight that those who want to restrict the rights of others simply can not win at this point in time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 01:49 PM
 
2,851 posts, read 3,474,894 times
Reputation: 1200
The dissenting judge's opinion should lead to their immediate withdrawal from the bench.

What person of intelligence starts a legal opinion with "Lets be real here" followed by pages of opinion that is directly contradicted by the facts surrounding the case. Basically they ignored the constitution and their duty to be impartial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 02:49 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,822,024 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
The dissenting judge's opinion should lead to their immediate withdrawal from the bench.

What person of intelligence starts a legal opinion with "Lets be real here" followed by pages of opinion that is directly contradicted by the facts surrounding the case. Basically they ignored the constitution and their duty to be impartial.
Welcome to every upholding of anti gun laws.

One ruling supporting anti gun laws was justified on making people feel like they were safer, even when they were not, being enough reason to uphold the law. Not to mention all the cherry picking of the scotus heller decision while ignoring the actual intent of the ruling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 05:45 PM
 
2,851 posts, read 3,474,894 times
Reputation: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Welcome to every upholding of anti gun laws.

One ruling supporting anti gun laws was justified on making people feel like they were safer, even when they were not, being enough reason to uphold the law. Not to mention all the cherry picking of the scotus heller decision while ignoring the actual intent of the ruling.
Absolutely agree. I just think this is a rather blatant example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 10:24 PM
 
32,068 posts, read 15,062,274 times
Reputation: 13687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rescue3 View Post
Why would this get appealed? O'Malley was a far left liberal governor. Maryland currently has a republican administration. The losing party has standing; I don't see the current Maryland governor wasting the state's dwindling supply of money on an appeal here.

(Last I heard he was still trying to cover the $125 million that got wasted on a healthcare sign up thing that didn't work...)


I guess you heard wrong then
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:07 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top