I would, in sum, wholly affirm the judgment of the district court on the basis of its summary judgment decision, which I commend unreservedly. See Kolbe v. O’Malley, 42 F.Supp.3d 768 (D.Md.2014). I. A. Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s FSA are exceptionally lethal weapons of war. In fact, the most popular of the prohibited semiautomatic rifles, the AR-15, functions almost identically to the military’s fully automatic M16. Significantly, the Supreme Court in its seminal Heller decision singled out “M-16 rifles and the like,” i.e., arms “that are most useful in military service,” as being “dangerous and unusual weapons” not even protected by the Second Amendment. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25, 627, 128 S.Ct. 2788, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Similar to the district court — and unlike
holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment holding that the eleventh amendment protects a state from suit by its own citizens recognizing that the second amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes such as shortbarreled shotguns and machineguns holding first amendment does not protect nonexpressive conduct holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president