Court says a gun’s looks matter more than its function (yes, really)

People ask me why I’m such an ardent gun-rights supporter.

My answer: Because I believe in making laws that make sense, or that are at least based in reality.

That’s my beef especially with so-called “assault weapons” bans. They restrict some firearms but not others that function similarly, and the criteria are most often window dressing — things on guns that may make them look scary but make them no more or less deadly.


Sadly, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has bought into this theory that a gun’s looks matter when it comes to public safety. In their ruling upholding Maryland’s assault-weapons ban, which the state argues is necessary to curb mass shootings, the majority wrote that the “assault weapons” defined in the state’s ban  – AR-15s and the like – enjoy no Second Amendment protections because they have things like telescoping stocks and pistol grips.