Woollard: Petition For Rehearing En Banc Denied.

[JD-IAFF]

4,000,0000 repubs who showed up for McCain in 08 failed to show up for Romney in 12. Romney failed to secure the base.

Where are you getting this from? McCain got 59,948,323 votes in 2008. Romney got 60,931,767 in 2012. He improved on McCain's vote count by almost a million votes (983,444).

Moreover, we (Republicans) LOST seats in both houses of Congress in 2012, despite gerrymandering in 2010. If the generic congressional polling stays at its current numbers, we're on track to lose a good many more in 2014.

Because we're alienating potential voters for no defensible reason.

What the earlier poster said is, IMO, accurate. The electorate tends to break down along social policy lines, with diehard liberal viewpoints on social policy going reliably D, diehard conservative viewpoints on social policy going R, and the moderates in the middle trying to decide between the lesser of two evils. Those moderate folks tend, by and large, to be repelled by what they regard as extremist socially conservative policy statements.

Gay marriage is a good example of that. Regardless of our personal viewpoints on that issue, the polling makes it abundantly clear that public opinion at large has swung and continues to swing, decisively, towards acceptance. Meanwhile, we're busily inserting planks into the platform that vigorously denounce it. That's a recipe for persuading people not to vote R on election day.

The sooner we jettison the social stuff and get back to basics on the stuff that people agree on (fiscal discipline, etc.) the sooner we'll be back in power. Until then, we're arguably shooting ourselves in the collective feet.

 

[JD-IAFF]

The Circuit Courts, with the exception of the 7th recently, have taken the position that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on their specific matter before, so therefore they have no guidance and they will just punt it.

I'd disagree. They are taking the position that, since SCOTUS didn't tread into specific matters (i.e. carry outside the home), they're free to keep doing what they have always done - deferring to the state via intermediate scrutiny.

 

[occbrian]

#41=Great post.

 

[Tacticalglobe]

The people just need to all carry or just move out of state.

I spend my Maryland earned money in PA or DE every weekend.
My carry permit is for those states surrounding MD. I pack my family, we roll up 83 and spend the Sat/Sun in PA.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Where are you getting this from? McCain got 59,948,323 votes in 2008. Romney got 60,931,767 in 2012. He improved on McCain's vote count by almost a million votes (983,444).

Moreover, we (Republicans) LOST seats in both houses of Congress in 2012, despite gerrymandering in 2010. If the generic congressional polling stays at its current numbers, we're on track to lose a good many more in 2014.

Because we're alienating potential voters for no defensible reason.

What the earlier poster said is, IMO, accurate. The electorate tends to break down along social policy lines, with diehard liberal viewpoints on social policy going reliably D, diehard conservative viewpoints on social policy going R, and the moderates in the middle trying to decide between the lesser of two evils. Those moderate folks tend, by and large, to be repelled by what they regard as extremist socially conservative policy statements.

Gay marriage is a good example of that. Regardless of our personal viewpoints on that issue, the polling makes it abundantly clear that public opinion at large has swung and continues to swing, decisively, towards acceptance. Meanwhile, we're busily inserting planks into the platform that vigorously denounce it. That's a recipe for persuading people not to vote R on election day.

The sooner we jettison the social stuff and get back to basics on the stuff that people agree on (fiscal discipline, etc.) the sooner we'll be back in power. Until then, we're arguably shooting ourselves in the collective feet.

You can't be for small gov, and then for big gov when it comes to religion, abortion, ect. It makes you hypocritical and an idiot.

That, and this is what I have to say to all the garbage that has occurred in the past 36 hours.

Hat tip to a rare posting member around here called Nerds.

 

[Southwest Chuck]

I'd disagree. They are taking the position that, since SCOTUS didn't tread into specific matters (i.e. carry outside the home), they're free to keep doing what they have always done - deferring to the state via ( Rational Basis disguised as) intermediate scrutiny.

Fixed it or ya...

 

[JD-IAFF]

Fixed it or ya...

Nah, it's intermediate.

 

[Haides]

How could you possibly say that the Wollard and Kachalsky rulings were anything close to intermediate?

 

[JD-IAFF]

How could you possibly say that the Wollard and Kachalsky rulings were anything close to intermediate?

The test for intermediate scrutiny is that the state must demonstrate that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important governmental interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.

NY and MD both argued that the laws in question further the governmental interest of public safety with respect to gun related crime by limiting access to guns and the public incidence of guns.

The courts have consistently agreed that public safety & gun related crime are important government interests, and the statutes in question are undeniably substantially related to that interest.

The statutes don't have to be effective to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. They just have to pass the test imposed by SCOTUS.

Rational basis review, on the other hand, doesn't require substantial relation. It's just a rational linkage to a permissible governmental interest. That linkage doesn't even have to be the government's stated interest. As long as some sort of legitimate interest can be inferred, even if it isn't the one underpinning the government's rationale for passing the statute, it's acceptable.

 

[Bagpiperer]

We could go for "heightened scrutiny" since gun owners are a persecuted minority.

 

[Haides]

*sigh*

This is retarded. So they can just encroach on any of our liberties, the stat can say "it's for it's the children" and the courts will say "works for me; it's constitutional?"

This is how we treat enumerated Constitutional rights now?

 

[JD-IAFF]

*sigh*

This is retarded. So they can just encroach on any of our liberties, the stat can say "it's for it's the children" and the courts will say "works for me; it's constitutional?"

This is how we treat enumerated Constitutional rights now?

That might be a bit of an extreme interpretation, but yea, generally the courts try to defer to the legislature when possible. They tend to step in when the legislature has gone off the deep end, and the review standards are designed to facilitate that deference.

The principle is that federal judges aren't elected. Legislatures are, so they are reluctant to second-guess elected representatives, on the premise that the people have ample recourse to replace those representatives if they legislate in ways that the people don't like.

(hint ...)

 

[Haides]

That might be a bit of an extreme interpretation, but yea, generally the courts try to defer to the legislature when possible. They tend to step in when the legislature has gone off the deep end, and the review standards are designed to facilitate that deference.

The principle is that federal judges aren't elected. Legislatures are, so they are reluctant to second-guess elected representatives, on the premise that the people have ample recourse to replace those representatives if they legislate in ways that the people don't like.

(hint ...)

I get it. As far as our situation goes...

Courts: We're screwed
Referendum (as for SB281): We're even more screwed
2014 DINO: Help me Obi Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope?

 

[AntiGun]

That might be a bit of an extreme interpretation, but yea, generally the courts try to defer to the legislature when possible. They tend to step in when the legislature has gone off the deep end, and the review standards are designed to facilitate that deference.

The principle is that federal judges aren't elected. Legislatures are, so they are reluctant to second-guess elected representatives, on the premise that the people have ample recourse to replace those representatives if they legislate in ways that the people don't like.

(hint ...)

a recourse so rarely taken as to be neglible

hoping to be proved wrong in 2014

 

[Hopalong]

The sooner we jettison the social stuff and get back to basics on the stuff that people agree on (fiscal discipline, etc.) the sooner we'll be back in power. Until then, we're arguably shooting ourselves in the collective feet.

You can't be for small gov, and then for big gov when it comes to religion, abortion, ect. It makes you hypocritical and an idiot.

I don't usually speak up on non-gun politics here, and I also hate to derail threads, but I really feel the need to speak up on this.

Since when is allowing people more personal liberty considered "big government"? Isn't the whole notion of "small government" the idea that government shouldn't be taking our liberties away? "Small government" is about making fewer things illegal, not more.

Like it or not, the gay marriage debate very closely mirrors the gun control debate. One side wants to exercise their rights, the other side wants to restrict them. It's that simple. "Why do you need an AR-15?" is pretty much the same question as "Why do you need to marry your gay partner?" Because they feel it's their right, that's why. There's a reason why a lot of the same lawyers who work on cases trying to overturn strict gun laws are also working on cases trying to overturn restrictions on gay marriage, the basic legal premises are the same.

Everyone is entitled to their own moral standpoint on these issues, but from a purely "big government" point of view, opposing gay marriage is tantamount to favoring gun control.

[flamesuit]

 

[Hopalong]

I fail to see the point of open carry of long guns. Concealed carry - absolutely.
Remember: what people don't see, they tend to forget about. Just be quietly, tactically prepared.

This is specifically in response to a brief that AG Gansler filed in the Wollard case. He stated that restricting concealed handgun carry wasn't denying anyone's Second Amendment rights outside of the home because it was perfectly legal to open carry a long gun in Maryland. SCOTUS has held that states do have the right to restrict the manner in which their citizens can carry, so long as they have an option to carry.

Great, except nobody buys it. Pretty much everyone here knows that if you're walking around with an AR strapped to your back, you're gonna get picked up and spend a few nights in the pokie. The question of the "test case" is someone doing exactly that and fighting it in court using Gansler's own argument against him.

Nobody wants to do that because A) it's a long, risky, and expensive process and B) it could well prompt the Maryland General Assembly to change toe law making long gun carry illegal.

Hope this helps.

 

[randian]

B) it could well prompt the Maryland General Assembly to change toe law making long gun carry illegal.

Pretty much what California did.

 

[Hopalong]

Pretty much what California did.

Interestingly enough, if they did that, it could well change the circumstances of Wollard enough (state no longer allowing citizen carry) to warrant hearing it (or rather, something similar to it) again. Still not a good thing, but not entirely bad either.

 

[AntiGun]

Interestingly enough, if they did that, it could well change the circumstances of Wollard enough (state no longer allowing citizen carry) to warrant hearing it (or rather, something similar to it) again. Still not a good thing, but not entirely bad either.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cal...pen-carrying-of-long-guns-in-california-.html

It has been done.

 

[aireyc]

Like it or not, the gay marriage debate very closely mirrors the gun control debate. One side wants to exercise their rights, the other side wants to restrict them. It's that simple. "Why do you need an AR-15?" is pretty much the same question as "Why do you need to marry your gay partner?" Because they feel it's their right, that's why. There's a reason why a lot of the same lawyers who work on cases trying to overturn strict gun laws are also working on cases trying to overturn restrictions on gay marriage, the basic legal premises are the same.

[flamesuit]

No. You don't understand the issue. Marriage is an institution of government, right? What is government? Of the people, by the people, for the people. In that light, marriage is an institution of the people, by the people, for the people, or in more specific terms, it's an institution that the people are willing to accept. Without public acceptance, marriage (or any institution) means nothing. It's not a right. It's not God-given (in the legal sense).

This contrasts greatly with gun rights, which simply prevent others from denying you to carry on your life as you see fit. I have the right to defend myself whether the government defines it or not. The 2A merely puts limitations on the government that prevents it from restricting my rights. A libertarian, small-government thinker should not want the government creating a law to deny what is legal by default. Marriage, in a legal sense, means nothing without the consent of the government. The issues couldn't be further apart.