Supreme Court Asked to Review Maryland’s Gun Ban

Bob A said:

I'm willing to wait until the next Trump pick for SCOTUS gets the nod. And please don't let Clarence Thomas retire.

Click to expand...

Bob A said:

I'm willing to wait until the next Trump pick for SCOTUS gets the nod. And please don't let Clarence Thomas retire.

Click to expand...

Bob A said:

I'm willing to wait until the next Trump pick for SCOTUS gets the nod. And please don't let Clarence Thomas retire.

Click to expand...

MrNiceGuy said:

Want any sort of restriction whatsoever to withstand constitutional scrutiny? Prove beyond all doubt that it is absolutely essential to mitigate an immediate, clear, and present danger, then prove beyond all doubt that the restriction is the most narrowly tailored and least restrictive possible way to accomplish that goal, and prove that it has a very high likelihood of actually accomplishing that goal, and provide readily accessible and substantive means for excepting out of that restriction on a case-by-case basis. Then, maybe, you can have a restriction.

.

Click to expand...

MrNiceGuy said:

Indeed, particularly if the next pick is as solid a 2A defender as Thomas and Gorsuch. Heller was nice, but we need much stronger, more sweeping decisions coming out of SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally cementing the Second Amendment as a core, fundamental, inviolable right on equal or even greater footing than any other, since it's the cornerstone for ensuring all the others are respected.

This whole thing about "but guns/knives/stun guns/etc are scary! And dangerous! and I don't like them!" needs to be completely annihilated as reasoning for any intended infringement. Want any sort of restriction whatsoever to withstand constitutional scrutiny? Prove beyond all doubt that it is absolutely essential to mitigate an immediate, clear, and present danger, then prove beyond all doubt that the restriction is the most narrowly tailored and least restrictive possible way to accomplish that goal, and prove that it has a very high likelihood of actually accomplishing that goal, and provide readily accessible and substantive means for excepting out of that restriction on a case-by-case basis. Then, maybe, you can have a restriction.

I don't just want to see a decision that invalidates Maryland's law as too restrictive; the Maryland General Assembly will just come up with another one. I want a decision that obliterates the unconstitutional law and anything like it. The kind of decision that wipes out decades of piss-poor judicial reasoning upholding such unconstitutional restrictions. A Brown v. Board of Education for the Second Amendment. And for that kind of decision to gain a majority, we need at least one new justice on the bench. Preferably one in place of one of the gun-hating leftists. I think Kennedy would come around with more influential voices arguing on behalf of our rights around him.

Click to expand...

sgt23preston said:

Blah, Blah, Blah...

They have bigger fish to fry such as transgendered soldiers rights...

Click to expand...

lazarus said:

Yes, it is called a strict scrutiny standard and all laws that regulate or infringe on those rights should be held to strict scrutiny.

That is what the original appeals court found on FSA2013 was that the law needed to be reviewed with strict scrutiny and punted it back to the district court. MD asked for en banc and the whole appeals court ruled it was fine to review a law that infringes our rights with rational basis scrutiny (the lowest level). Though it may have been that intermediate scrutiny was fine.

Either way, government should have to prove a compelling reason for the law, that it is effacious at accomplishing the goal and limits the right in the most minor way possible to achieve the government goal in protecting citizens.

Click to expand...

MrNiceGuy said:

Indeed, particularly if the next pick is as solid a 2A defender as Thomas and Gorsuch. Heller was nice, but we need much stronger, more sweeping decisions coming out of SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally cementing the Second Amendment as a core, fundamental, inviolable right on equal or even greater footing than any other, since it's the cornerstone for ensuring all the others are respected.

This whole thing about "but guns/knives/stun guns/etc are scary! And dangerous! and I don't like them!" needs to be completely annihilated as reasoning for any intended infringement. Want any sort of restriction whatsoever to withstand constitutional scrutiny? Prove beyond all doubt that it is absolutely essential to mitigate an immediate, clear, and present danger, then prove beyond all doubt that the restriction is the most narrowly tailored and least restrictive possible way to accomplish that goal, and prove that it has a very high likelihood of actually accomplishing that goal, and provide readily accessible and substantive means for excepting out of that restriction on a case-by-case basis. Then, maybe, you can have a restriction.

I don't just want to see a decision that invalidates Maryland's law as too restrictive; the Maryland General Assembly will just come up with another one. I want a decision that obliterates the unconstitutional law and anything like it. The kind of decision that wipes out decades of piss-poor judicial reasoning upholding such unconstitutional restrictions. A Brown v. Board of Education for the Second Amendment. And for that kind of decision to gain a majority, we need at least one new justice on the bench. Preferably one in place of one of the gun-hating leftists. I think Kennedy would come around with more influential voices arguing on behalf of our rights around him.

Click to expand...