I’m not sure why The Gun Feed just picked up this 2017 story. But so long as they have, let’s look at some judicial stupidity. It never hurts to be ready to argue the next — inevitable — infringement case.

Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules
“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

First, the assertion that HELLER “explicitly excluded” Second Amendment protection of “assault weapons” is such a gross misstatement of the decision that I can only consider King’s claim to be a blatant, intentional lie.

If it is indeed the case, as the District believes, that the number of guns contributes to the number of gun-related crimes, accidents, and deaths, then, although there may be less restrictive, less effective substitutes for an outright ban, there is no less restrictive equivalent of an outright ban.

HELLER found that less restrictive measures than an outright ban must be considered. Note especially that HELLER overturned the District’s outright ban on handguns. For the terminally clueless, they’re were specifying strict scrutiny.

At least dissenting Judge William Traxler got it.

“For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland’s law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand.”

Yes; strict scrutiny, to weigh whether any lesser restriction than an outright ban would suffice to meet the government’s alleged interest.

But let us turn our attention to the other factor that King and the Fourth missed.

“Weapons of war” are the only class of weapons that the US Supreme Court HAS ruled to be specifically protected by the Second Amendment.

MILLER, 1939
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Required. And “common use” — note that the short-barreled shotgun test in question in MILLER specified common military use, not sporting use — would seem to apply to 20 MILLION AR-pattern weapons of the sort this very Court called “weapons of war.”

Common, militia-suitable arms.

It appears to me that ten injustices on the Fourth Circuit needed to be impeached; for sheer incompetence, if not outright malfeasance.