A Bright Spot

Finally, an assault weapons ban is upheld:

Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.

"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.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it's "unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment."

"It's a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it's en-banc and for the strength of its decision," Frosh said, noting that all of the court's judges participated.

The NRA is -- how shall I put it? -- up in arms. And I'm sure there will be an appeal, but the court in this case made a good distinction, although I wonder how it will stand up against a literal reading of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I can see where someone could make the argument that the Second Amendment does, in fact, include weapons of war by the reference to a "militia" -- when the Consitution was adopted, the U.S. had no standing army.

Of course, on the flip side of that, I'd like to see an instance in which someone actually used an assault weapon in defense of home and family.

Via NCRM.