Decision in Kolbe!

[ComeGet]

"Since FSA, there have been ZERO..."

ummm.......

And, how many before?

 

[lennyk]

If in the end this all goes our way, what effect will this have on the GA creating new laws like this? I assume there are no repercussions to Frosh, or GA members for creating a law that is overturned in court. What keeps them from just writing up a new law just like this and passing it? Then we have raise funds to challenge and wait years for the process to take place, all along the law is being enforced on the citizens.

We donate, keep fighting, and let the "old line state" be a shining beacon for the rest of the country.

I know our votes in Maryland may generally not mean much (but we still vote - and Hogan won). But I tell you, this decision is the one that will be heard across America. This is "huge."

 

[trickg]

The interesting thing that seems to be coming out of this, at least from what I've seen initially, is that when held up to strict scrutiny and held in light of the Heller decision, even the news outlets seem to be implying that Maryland overstepped their bounds.

 

[ComeGet]

Interesting thing here: I've looked over the MSM sites I usually peruse and am seeing nothing on this. I know that the WaPo had an article yesterday, but it's buried now.

A wider search garnered only one hit about the decision.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it appears that the general trend is to not publicize this to the general public.

 

[Blacksmith101]

If in the end this all goes our way, what effect will this have on the GA creating new laws like this? I assume there are no repercussions to Frosh, or GA members for creating a law that is overturned in court. What keeps them from just writing up a new law just like this and passing it? Then we have raise funds to challenge and wait years for the process to take place, all along the law is being enforced on the citizens.

In general the courts take a very dim view of this kind of thing and you don't want to be on the receiving end of an unhappy judge. They can make you wish you didn't.

 

[esqappellate]

CA4 Judge Albert Diaz--an Obama appointee--wrote the sole dissent on Woollard.

The two CA4 judges voting to remand, Chief Traxler and Agee, are both Republican appointees. King, the dissenter, is a Clinton appointee.

If it goes en banc it's 9-8 for the good guys.

Here's the Bio info:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/judges/judges-of-the-court

Actually CJ Traxler was appted to the court of appeals by Clinton

 

[erwos]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it appears that the general trend is to not publicize this to the general public.

Not sure I agree... the Baltimore Sun has it on the front page of their website. Simply put, while this is a big deal for our cause, it has not reached the point where it's going to make any impact on what people can actually do. As a general interest piece, it's pretty meh.

Now, if/when the District court rules in our favor, that's something that could potentially generate a stay on the law... which would be real news.

 

[vgplayer]

I would say that local print outlets picked it up but national hasn't said much.

 

[5.56blaster]

I would say that local print outlets picked it up but national hasn't said much.

Less than 30 seconds on Fox 45 last night.

 

[erwos]

I would say that local print outlets picked it up but national hasn't said much.

It isn't national news. Not yet.

 

[vgplayer]

It also doesn't jive with democrat Presidential candidates calling for an assault weapons ban.

 

[eventhorizon]

It isn't national news. Not yet.

Hopefully that will change relatively soon for good reasons.

 

[press1280]

CA4 Judge Albert Diaz--an Obama appointee--wrote the sole dissent on Woollard.

The two CA4 judges voting to remand, Chief Traxler and Agee, are both Republican appointees. King, the dissenter, is a Clinton appointee.

If it goes en banc it's 9-8 for the good guys.

Here's the Bio info:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/judges/judges-of-the-court

It's actually 15 judges, senior judges normally do not participate in en banc unless they were on the 3 judge panel, which didn't happen here.

 

[EL1227]

The interesting thing that seems to be coming out of this, at least from what I've seen initially, is that when held up to strict scrutiny and held in light of the Heller decision, even the news outlets seem to be implying that Maryland overstepped their bounds.

Check out the "Engaging Post" on MSI's 2nd Amendment Resource Room Facebook page. There are now 12 articles posted from various sites and MSM sources.

 

[Schipperke]

This is not a finding that Maryland’s law is unconstitutional. It is simply a ruling that
the test of its constitutionality is different from that used by the district court.

Is that some kind of doublespeak?

 

[DC-W]

No. They didn't rule on the constitutionality of the law itself. That's for the lower court to decide.

 

[Schipperke]

The fix is in..

 

[Tebonski]

It's actually 15 judges, senior judges normally do not participate in en banc unless they were on the 3 judge panel, which didn't happen here.

So does anyone know who the two most senior judges are and what president were they appointed by? If the two most senior were appointed by Reagan or Bush and they're not voting then the benefit goes to the liberals. Not good.

 

[DC-W]

The fix is in..

Nope.

Good cliff-notes here
http://www.pagunblog.com/2016/02/04...th-circuit-over-maryland-assault-weapons-ban/

This is not a finding of unconstitutionality, it should be noted. They have only directed the lower court to apply the correct standard of scrutiny.

Because the district court did not evaluate the challenged provisions of the FSA under the proper standard of strict scrutiny, and the State did not develop the evidence or arguments required to support the FSA under the proper standard, we vacate the district court’s order as to Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge and remand for the court to apply strict scrutiny in the first instance. This is not a finding that Maryland’s law is unconstitutional. It is simply a ruling that the test of its constitutionality is different from that used by the district court. The State should be afforded the opportunity to develop its case in light of this more demanding standard, and Plaintiffs should be permitted to do so as well.

This is still very good. Strict scrutiny is a high level of review.

 

[dblas]

I know there are many here that "dislike" the NRA. Do not get me wrong they have stepped in it a few times themselves, but one thing is right, they are the most powerful gun rights group in the country. Yes they do not throw good money after bad in MD because of the MDGA when they can win 10 smaller cases with same money than to lose 1 larger case in a state like MD. Its about putting out the most fires with "limited" resources that they as an organization have. Its great they bankrolled most of this case and kept it "quiet". I wish they would do more fighting in the state but facts are facts the system in place in MD is stacked against them even with a "republican" governor that 50-50 chance to win would look like a slam dunk in this state

For those that are NRA members at any level, send them a note asking about supporting an HQL lawsuit. Make sure the e-mail goes to the legal arm at NRA-ILA.