Instead, the Ninth Circuit ignored that threshold issue and jumped straight to rational-basis review of a California statute that granted retired police the right to carry semi-automatic weapons despite a ban. See Silveira, 312 F.3d at 1090-91. The Ninth Circuit then established the California statute’s objectives by relying on legislative history and public statements specific to that statute, all of which indicated that the California law was intended to “eliminate the availability of the [restricted] weapons generally.” Id. at 1091. In contrast, the record here contains no evidence that the Maryland General Assembly had any similarly prohibitionist intent. Most fundamentally, Silveira appears to have been animated by a hostility toward so-called “assault weapons” in general. Id. (<HOLDING>); cf. Nordyke v. King, 319 F.3d 1185, 1192 n. 4
holding that the state police is a state agency holding that officers were not justified in conducting a protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest despite the defendants alleged involvement with narcotics and possession of weapons because the defendant did not resist and there was no noise or other evidence suggesting anyone else was present in the house recognizing that foreign sovereigns possess a legitimate claim to immunity from discovery holding that even though police officers pointed their weapons and made verbal commands because one plaintiff ran away and the other pushed the officers gun out of her face they never submitted to the assertions of authority and therefore there was no seizure holding that there is no legitimate state interest in permitting retired police officers  and apparently anyone  to possess and use militarystyle weapons for their personal pleasure