hog slayer
Expert
In a 10-4 decision the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court of Richmond, VA ruled that ownership of an "assault rifle" is not protected by the Second Amendment and use for home defense (among other things).
We conclude — contrary to the now vacated
decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault
weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the
Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned
assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those
arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most
useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out
as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. See 554 U.S. at
627 (rejecting the notion that the Second Amendment safeguards
“M-16 rifles and the like”). Put simply, we have no power to
extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that
the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.
Nevertheless, we also find it prudent to rule that — even if the
banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are somehow
entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court
properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny and
correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of
review.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Pub...945A.P.pdf
We conclude — contrary to the now vacated
decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault
weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the
Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned
assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those
arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most
useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out
as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. See 554 U.S. at
627 (rejecting the notion that the Second Amendment safeguards
“M-16 rifles and the like”). Put simply, we have no power to
extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that
the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.
Nevertheless, we also find it prudent to rule that — even if the
banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are somehow
entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court
properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny and
correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of
review.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Pub...945A.P.pdf