SCOTUS Upholds Maryland “Assault Weapons” Ban of AR-15s By Refusing to Hear Challenge to Lower Court Ruling
Let me give you the cliff notes version of what you are about to read, and then I’ll offer further clarification:
SCOTUS has de facto ruled (through not changing a lower court ruling decision) that you have a “right” to bear arms, but only arms that aren’t a threat to the government.
That’s my take on it.
Yay Rule of Law. Yay Bill of Rights.
Let me offer a tiny bit more clarification before I dive fully into this:
What are the Bill of Rights humpers gonna do now that SCOTUS has said it’s ok to ban “assault rifles?”
Now, with all that said, let’s reveal what it is we’re talking about.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America, the alleged upholder of muh Rule of Law, the final check on government’s tendency to want to take more territory than muh Rule of Law would allegedly had them take, had an opportunity to consider a case yesterday, November 27th, 2017. The Supreme Court chose not to review the case, meaning that lower court ruling will stay in place.
This refusal to hear the case is a tacit approval by that final guardian of your liberties (allegedly), SCOTUS, of two rather chilling rulings.
In the case of Kolbe v Hogan, a challenge was raised to the “Enhanced” “Assault Weapons” ban recently passed by Maryland. The enhanced assault weapons ban adds the semi-auto AR-15 to the ban list even though it is not in actuality an assault weapon (because, you know, it’s only semi auto, not select fire, or automatic).
A lower court ruling upheld the law as being constitutional on the grounds that Sandy Hook and other mass shootings demonstrate how unsafe these weapons really are (deeming them the SCOTUS-invented term of “weapons of war” from the now famous Heller decision of 2010).
Rather than hear the case, the Supreme Court took the easy way out, declaring that the case has been declined for certification.
The refusal by SCOTUS to hear the case means that the lower court’s anti-liberty, anti-human, anti-self-defense, pro-empowering-the-state ruling stands, unchallenged. Maryland is now free to disarm its cattle, er, citizens.
The lower court ruling reads, in part (and I think it’s the key part) that, “(They) have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”
In other words, as I stated above, the only power that should have the most effective tools for self defense should be the coercive association, the state. The lower court has ruled that if cattle, that is, ‘citizens’ have effective tools for self defense then it’s a threat to their own safety. They didn’t say that, but believe you me these black robed thugs living off the theft of millions were thinking it.
So, like I said in the beginning, how about that Rule of Law?