Outrageous: Federal Judge Rules AR-15s “Fall Outside Second Amendment Protection as Dangerous and Unusual”

A federal judge in Maryland ruled “assault rifles,” meaning AR-15s and other scary black guns with magazines, are “dangerous and unusual,” so you can’t own them.

Which is less surprising, that this happened in Maryland, or that the judge was appointed by President Clinton?

From Guns Save Lives:

The case in question is Kolbe et al v. O’Malley et al which named numerous plaintiffs including the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), among others which challenged the constitutionality of Maryland’s strict new gun laws.

Here are some of Blake’s other comments [emphasis mine],

Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.

First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.

The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.

As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.

Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.

So, wait?  Assault weapons are designed for offensive use?

So, these guys aren’t carrying them for defense, but for offense?

All these police are carrying these weapons for offensive reasons?

So, if they have those to kill us, then why shouldn’t we have them again?

Because they’re dangerous?

Seems like if only the government has these, that would be more dangerous.

Of course, that’s just history and facts talking.

I think I’m safe when I say this isn’t over.