Delaware Concealed Carry Forum
State News & Gun News => NRA & National Gun News => Topic started by: PPScarry on February 22, 2017, 03:25:57 PM
-
http://www.wboc.com/story/34559507/federal-appeals-court-upholds-md-gun-laws
Weapons of war gets me. I didn't know my 17 round magazines are weapons of war. Or my AR that is a weapon of fun at the range. Nuts.
The 2A isn't a long book to read, it's simple and short. Reading into this one sentence is wrong. Legislating from the bench is getting old.
-
Yet they are allowed evil suppressors. Shhhhhhhhh
-
Delaware was at one time trying to do the 10 round max thing. My 9mm holds 17 in mag and 1 in chamber. I have 2/ 17 rd mags. I also have 2 /10 rounds mags just in case, Some other states have 10 round max also, so if I travel I am prepared.
-
Expect an AW ban & mag limits bill to be introduced in Delaware within the next few weeks.
-
Expect an AW ban & mag limits bill to be introduced in Delaware within the next few weeks.
Another good reason for anyone in the 10th senatorial to get out and vote.
-
This has tremendous implications for the whole country if it goes to the Supreme Court. I am afraid that when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the idea that owning arms to defend against the government should the need arise has been lost sight of. Meaning we should be able to bare the same arms as the military. Maryland's Judge King specifically said "Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war." That is disturbing to me, and misses a huge point of the 2nd Amendment, framing it as a privilege instead of a right. To me the strongest point regarding the 2nd Amendment and the ownership of "assault weapons" or "weapons of war" or what ever they want to call it is the right to own these weapons to fight against a tyrannical government. But I don't hear that argument at all.
-
Appears that in the lexicon of the MD Judiciary a militia is used for parades and ceremonies only.
-
This has tremendous implications for the whole country if it goes to the Supreme Court. I am afraid that when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the idea that owning arms to defend against the government should the need arise has been lost sight of. Meaning we should be able to bare the same arms as the military. Maryland's Judge King specifically said "Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war." That is disturbing to me, and misses a huge point of the 2nd Amendment, framing it as a privilege instead of a right. To me the strongest point regarding the 2nd Amendment and the ownership of "assault weapons" or "weapons of war" or what ever they want to call it is the right to own these weapons to fight against a tyrannical government. But I don't hear that argument at all.
That is an excellent point and my problem with the judge. It is the reason for the 2A to own such weapons. One sentence is being twisted into the opposite of its meaning.