A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT HAS RULED AGAINST THE SECOND
AMENDMENT.
NOW, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY RULE AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT,
THEY RULED THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE SECOND
AMENDMENT, AND THIS IS NOT THE FIRST RULING THAT SAYS SO.
NOW, A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT ON TUESDAY UPHELD MARILYN SPANN ON
ASSAULT WEAPONS AND HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES, RULING
THAT SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS DO NOT EXTEND TO
WHAT IT CALLED WEAPONS OF WAR.
IN FACT, THE COURT RULED 10 TO 4, SO THE MAJORITY OF THE
JUDGES, THE VAST MAJORITY IN THIS CASE, RULED IN FAVOR OF THE
LAW IN MARYLAND.
JUDGE ROBERT KING OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ñ
FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, SAID
THAT THE DECISION RENDERED IN 2008 ESPECIALLY ALLOWS
GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE FIREARMS SIMILAR IN DESIGN AND
FUNCTION TO THOSE ISSUED TO MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY.
HE WRITES, "THE DECISION MARKS THE FIFTH TIME THAT A FEDERAL
APPEALS COURT HAS UPHELD A STATUS ON WEAPONS LAW - "
I'M SORRY, HE DIDN'T SAY THIS, THIS IS FROM THE ANALYSIS
OF THE RULING.
IT MARCH 5 TIME THAT FEDERAL ñ A FEDERAL COURT HAS UPHELD AN
ASSAULT WEAPON LAW, BUT IT ñ IT IS THE FIRST TO EXCLUDE AR 15'S
AND SIMILAR GUNS FROM SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ON THE
GROUNDS THAT THEY ARE VIRTUALLY INTO SINGLE FROM WEAPONS OF WAR.
AND, MARILYN'S ASSAULT WEAPONS LAW IS SIMILAR TO CALIFORNIA'S,
REQUIRING THE DECISION OF THOSE WEAPONS LAWFULLY POSSESSED
BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE BAN.
SO, IN MARYLAND IF YOU HAD THESE WEAPONS PRIOR TO THE
PASSAGE OF THE LAW, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP THEM, IT
JUST MEANS THAT YOU CAN'T FIND MORE ASSAULT WEAPONS AND
YOU CAN'T TRANSFER THEM PRIVATELY TO OTHER
INDIVIDUALS, AND THE SAME GOES FOR HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES.
SO, EVEN IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION THAT SAID THAT HANDGUNS ARE COVERED BY THE SECOND
AMENDMENT, THEY EXPRESSLY ALLOWED THE GOVERNMENT TO
REGULATE FIREARMS THAT WERE SIMILAR TO ONES THAT ARE
ISSUED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY.
SO, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT MARYLAND DID, IT WAS EXACTLY
AS THE CONSERVATIVE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT ENVISIONED.
SO, THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT GIVE YOU AN UNLIMITED RIGHT
TO ARMS.
I THINK IT ONLY GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO ARMS IF YOU ARE
PART OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BUT THE SUPREME
COURT DISAGREED WITH ME AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT EVEN THE CONSERVATIVE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT
SAYS, OF COURSE THERE'S A LIMIT TO WHICH, YOU CAN'T ROLL INTO
TOWN WITH A TANK OR AN RPG BECAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
SO, MARYLAND WAS PERFECTLY WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
BOUNDARIES TO SAY, YES YOU CAN HAVE A TANK, AN RPG, OR AN AR
15, EXACTLY AS THE CONSERVATIVE COURT RULED IN 2008.
EXACTLY, YET.
IF YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE THERE'S ONLY ONE OTHER
THING YOU SHOULD GET ñ
THERE'S ONLY ONE OTHER THING YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT.
YOU KNOW HOW CONSERVATIVES ALWAYS TALK ABOUT ACTIVIST
JUDGES THAT OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE?
WELL, IF YOU SAID THAT MARYLAND WOULD NOT PASS THIS LAW,
YOU WOULD BE AN ACTIVIST JUDGE OVERTURNING THE WILL OF THE
PEOPLE.
THE PEOPLE OF MARYLAND VOTED FOR THIS, THEY'LL WANT THESE
MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS.
AND YOU MIGHT THINK, IT'S NOT A MILITARY STYLE WEAPON!
THAT'S LIKE, YOUR OPINION, MAN.
AND THEY VOTED IN MARYLAND, AND THEIR OPINION IS THAT IT IS
SUCH A WEAPON, AND YOU WANTED IN THEIR STATE.
IF YOU ARE CONSERVATIVE AND YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS,
YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT ONE OF THE JUDGES WHO VOTED IN FAVOR
OF THIS RULING WAS A CONSERVATIVE JUDGE.
THIS IS THE QUOTE I WANTED TO READ EARLIER:
SO, A CONSERVATIVE APPOINTED BY RONALD REAGAN WROTE IN A
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION THAT ASSAULT WEAPON LAWS ARE A
WHOLLY SEPARATE SUBJECT FROM CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
HANDGUN OWNERSHIP FOR SELF-DEFENSE.
PEOPLE THAT JUDICIAL DECISIONS TO REJECT ASSAULT WEAPON
BANS WOULD BE DISENFRANCHISING."
MEANING THAT TAKING THE RIGHT TO VOTE AWAY IS ANTIDEMOCRATIC.
SO YOU WOULD LET THE VOTERS FEELINGS ON THAT STAND.
BY THE WAY, THAT MEANS ANOTHER STATE COULD ALLOW IT, SO IF YOU
LIVE IN MONTANA AND YOU GUYS WANT TO SHOOT UP THE DEER TO
YOUR HEARTS CONTENT, OR WHATEVER ELSE YOU WANT TO SHOOT UP, THAT
SAME JUDGE WOULD SAY LIKE, THAT'S YOUR OPINION.
BUT MARYLAND DOESN'T WANT IT AND THEY GET TO HAVE THE LAW
THEY PASSED.