esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Wow. Not only is it a win under intermediate scrutiny, it was en banc.
Certainly nobody wants violent felons possessing weapons, but at least now there is a legal test to determine whether someone is truly dangerous or is just an administrative offender. Too bad the decision wasn't in 4th Circuit.
WOW. Now how can we use this here in MD I wonder?
This will be really helpful in the first circuit.
If the government chooses to petition the Supreme Court for review (a decision that it can wait to make until after the election), it’s likely that the court will agree to hear the case.
Can a non prohibited person actually carry illegally being that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? I say it is the government's that infringe that are breaking the law. Just my two centsYou won't have to use it (the actual holding) ever if you never get convicted of a disqualifying crime...... It is good to know that an as applied challenge can be successfully mounted, to a violation of 4-203 even. Much better is not to have the problem in the first place, viz., don't carry illegally.
I think that is the ultimate goal of these law suits. But then again, not in my lifetime.Can a non prohibited person actually carry illegally being that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? I say it is the government's that infringe that are breaking the law. Just my two cents
Emphasis mine.
It's a limited ruling, yes. But I tend to think it will open the floodgates for similar as-applied challenges. There are already a number in the pipeline and I can't help but think there will be a significant pile-on effect.The as- applied opinion is far too limited in its impact, applying only to these two plaintiffs and only to non-violent misdemeanors committed decades ago, to warrant cert. I tend to doubt that cert. will be sought or, if it is, that it would be granted
It's a limited ruling, yes. But I tend to think it will open the floodgates for similar as-applied challenges. There are already a number in the pipeline and I can't help but think there will be a significant pile-on effect.
The question is: how does this scale? Without a fundamental change to 922 or a judicial rethinking of who can and cannot be a prohibited person, are we left with a scenario were everyone with a long ago forgotten non-violent, minor misdemeanor must go to court to have their rights restored?
I'm just not sure where to go from here either than to just fill up the judicial pipeline.