Monday, March 6, 2017

Appeals Court Upholds Maryland Ban on Assault Weapons - Wall Street Journal Editors Have a Hissy Fit

And Evoke Laughter - At Them Not With Them

Maryland did a logical thing a while ago.  The state banned military style assualt weapons, reasoning that civilians do not need them unless their town is being invaded by a small country.  The Wall Street Journal editors were outraged, outraged by this assault on the freedom to own a military weapon.  Their editorial on the subject is so outlandish it would be funny, but assault weapons are not jokes.  Here are some low points of their opinion.

If you want to know why millions of Republicans voted for Donald Trump despite their doubts about his values or policies, look no further than Tuesday’s ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on gun rights. The 10-4 en banc decision shows how a liberal Supreme Court majority would eviscerate the Second Amendment.

The Fourth Circuit is one of several appellate courts that Barack Obama remade over eight years, and in Kolbe v. Hogan the liberal majority upheld Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act. That law bans firearms such as the popular, semiautomatic AR-15 rifle that gun-control advocates call an “assault weapon.”

Okay, notice that somehow banning this weapon would 'eviscerate' the 2nd Amendment. Wow, stop assualt rifles and the entire right to bear arms is lost.  And notice the doubt on calling the rifle an assualt weapon. Hm, let's see. It cannot be used for hunting, it would obliterate the prey. It can't be used for target shooting, it would obliterate the target, and no skill is really required. What can it be used for? Oh, I know, I know, obliterating people.  And then there is this.

But the Fourth Circuit’s judicial progressives didn’t let a mere precedent stand in their political way. They concocted a new “military use” legal test. Politicians can ban a firearm, they ruled, if a judge determines that it is “most useful in military service.”

Gosh, government cannot prevent citizens from owning military weapons. "Hey Marge, I am gong to get a Serman tank, be right back."  Or what about this.

When Mr. Obama took office in 2009, 10 of 13 appellate courts had majorities appointed by GOP Presidents. Now nine of 13 have Democratic-appointed majorities.

Uh, duh. This is what Presidents do unless Republicans steal judicial seats from Democrats (and not the other way around, that would be wrong).

Look, today's false conservatives stress state's rights.  But only when the states do things conservatives agree with.  Conservatives say the courts should not legislate, but that is exactly what the WSJ editors want the courts to do.  Conservatives say the Constitution should be narrowly interpreted, but saying the Constitution means all guns must be allowed is the broadest possible interpretation.  Conservatives say they want original intent, but allowing civilians to own assault weapons is no where near original intent.  In fact, conservatives ought to argue for unlimited rights to own 18th century weapons, that's all.

The WSJ editorial is titled "Waiting for Justice Gorsuch'.  Because they believe everything is political they expect the new Justice to vote their way.  But maybe, just maybe Justice Gorsuch is a real conservatives and would uphold conservative judicial philosophy.  Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass for fake conservatives like the WSJ.

No comments:

Post a Comment