Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 2nd, 2020, 11:14 AM #1
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,352
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,352
3rd Circuit Appeals - Upholds LCM Ban

\
Just released yesterday. Panel says it is bound by the last appeal in the third on the issue. But there is a really good dissent

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/193142p.pdf
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
wolfwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2020, 11:20 AM #2
babalou's Avatar
babalou babalou is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 7,080
babalou babalou is online now
Senior Member
babalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 7,080
Good dissents

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
\
Just released yesterday. Panel says it is bound by the last appeal in the third on the issue. But there is a really good dissent

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/193142p.pdf
But good dissent. yeah, good dissents are for suckers. Next all will be required to drive 3 cylinder Chevy Sprints. Tired of the A for effort crap.
__________________
SOTAR Alumnus
MD Designated Collector
Patriot Picket Member
babalou is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2020, 02:52 PM #3
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,262
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
\
Just released yesterday. Panel says it is bound by the last appeal in the third on the issue. But there is a really good dissent

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/193142p.pdf
It is not that great. The judge talked around the issue but did not exactly call it out.

They danced around the fact that the government presents correlation without demonstrating causation. Without causation the government's case is mere speculation, which is allowed under rational basis, but is not substantial enough to survive intermediate scrutiny.

You need to clearly articulate the reasons so the court can understand the issue.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2020, 03:25 PM #4
LeadSled1's Avatar
LeadSled1 LeadSled1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 2,941
Images: 11
LeadSled1 LeadSled1 is offline
Senior Member
LeadSled1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 2,941
Images: 11
Would somebody please ban magazines greater than 1 round so we can get to the bottom of this shit. The states keep whittling it down and down. Just go for the gusto and be done with it.
__________________
LeadSled1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2020, 04:36 PM #5
BeoBill's Avatar
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 18,150
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
BeoBill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 18,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
\
Just released yesterday. Panel says it is bound by the last appeal in the third on the issue. But there is a really good dissent

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/193142p.pdf
__________________
Formerly "The Pitbull from OSD Policy." To err is human. To forgive is not SAC policy.
“Those who beat their arms into plows will plow for those who don’t.”

Dark to Light; sheep no more. WWG1WGA WWNC
#MorePatriotsThanHandcuffs
BeoBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2020, 05:38 PM #6
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,262
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeoBill View Post
This case demonstrates next time is that much harder and they are that much more reluctant to deviate from any precedent that gets set the first time.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2020, 03:41 PM #7
pcfixer's Avatar
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,762
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
This case demonstrates next time is that much harder and they are that much more reluctant to deviate from any precedent that gets set the first time.
Clearly not in keeping with Heller, McDonald, Wren & Rogers v Grewal. There is no historical restriction on magazine's.

Quote:
. “Some laws, however, broadly divest an individual of his Second Amendment rights” altogether. Ibid. This case gives us the ideal opportunity to at least begin analyzing which restrictions are consistent with the historical scope of the right to bear arms.
__________________
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of tyrannical government.

“By the way I call it "moral obedience" rather than "civil disobedience" because it is God's law". Those who try to promote un-natural laws on us are committing moral disobedience. It is our duty to resist immoral laws and actions.” By Richard Fry.
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2020, 04:12 PM #8
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,262
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfixer View Post
Clearly not in keeping with Heller, McDonald, Wren & Rogers v Grewal. There is no historical restriction on magazine's.
This case is consistent with Drake, Rogers v Grewal, and the prior NJ LCM case. Wren is not precedential in the 3CA. SCOTUS has not stepped in to overturn any of these cases, so it is not so out of line with their precedents.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2020, 09:00 AM #9
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,588
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,588
Let's see if they appeal for en banc. The majority opinion seems to leave it an open question whether the prior panel got it wrong and acknowledges a well written dissent. It would be interesting if any of the majority votes for en banc.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2020, 12:53 PM #10
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,262
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Let's see if they appeal for en banc. The majority opinion seems to leave it an open question whether the prior panel got it wrong and acknowledges a well written dissent. It would be interesting if any of the majority votes for en banc.
It certainly does not hurt them to appeal for en banc. I do not see this case going anywhere because it does not appear that they have advanced any new arguments.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service