Supreme Court Spurns Challenge to Maryland Assault Weapons Ban
The court turned away an appeal by several Maryland residents, firearms dealers and the state NRA association, who argued that the ban violated their right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment....
The challengers, who had sued Maryland’s governor and other officials in 2013, appealed a February ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia that upheld the state’s law. The 4th Circuit said it had no power to extend constitutional protections to “weapons of war,” and it found little evidence such guns were well-suited for self-defense.
I guess that it depends on where you are in relationship with the fight, as to whether the evidence is big or little.
Some people seem to be oblivious to the fact that the term "assault rifle" has both offensive and defensive implication. To the law-abiding citizen, intent on defending themselves from an assault, the term is used as brevity for the more lengthy term: "a tool to defend yourself from an assault", as we recently saw evidenced in Texas. In that regard, why wouldn't the right to keep and bear "assault rifles" be included as a civil right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to our Constitution?
It appears that somebody still has their finger on the scale!
/fl