Decision in Kolbe!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Gambler

    ¿Got Freedom?
    Oct 30, 2011
    3,476
    Parkville
    No. LEO = Citizen = Me.

    To say that an LEO is more likely to use his legal firearm for the purposes of good is disingenuous. Regular citizens use their firearms to thwart crime and protect themselves all the time. Arguably more so than LEO.

    Not to mention the fact that LEOs are NOT bound by law to aid a citizen in distress.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    I read it as we get strict scrutiny which is a win but we lose the equal protection argument and the "copies" are too vague argument. Is this about right

    We don't lose the equal protection argument. We don't need it. These firearm are protected by the 2A, PERIOD. There is no other argument that needs to be made.
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    Strict scrutiny is the opposite of "Guns are bad cause the government says so, m'kay?"

    The state must show a compelling interest (easy in this case) but it also but show that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there is no less restrictive way to accomplish the government's interest.

    Those parts are hard. This is setting up to be a big case now, and a prime example of why you must have the money to go all the way. This case could establish SS as the standard of review for 2A claims, which would be HUGE because it would place 2A claims on the same level as 1A claims.
     

    Gambler

    ¿Got Freedom?
    Oct 30, 2011
    3,476
    Parkville
    Strict scrutiny is the opposite of "Guns are bad cause the government says so, m'kay?"

    The state must show a compelling interest (easy in this case) but it also but show that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there is no less restrictive way to accomplish the government's interest.

    Those parts are hard. This is setting up to be a big case now, and a prime example of why you must have the money to go all the way. This case could establish SS as the standard of review for 2A claims, which would be HUGE because it would place 2A claims on the same level as 1A claims.

    Good summary.
     

    aquaman

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 21, 2008
    7,499
    Belcamp, MD
    Strict scrutiny is the opposite of "Guns are bad cause the government says so, m'kay?"

    The state must show a compelling interest (easy in this case) but it also but show that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there is no less restrictive way to accomplish the government's interest.

    Those parts are hard. This is setting up to be a big case now, and a prime example of why you must have the money to go all the way. This case could establish SS as the standard of review for 2A claims, which would be HUGE because it would place 2A claims on the same level as 1A claims.

    Maybe Frosh will let it ride then. If he goes all in and loses the anti-gunners would lose more(nationally) than we would in MD.
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    Strict scrutiny is the opposite of "Guns are bad cause the government says so, m'kay?"

    The state must show a compelling interest (easy in this case) but it also but show that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there is no less restrictive way to accomplish the government's interest.

    Those parts are hard. This is setting up to be a big case now, and a prime example of why you must have the money to go all the way. This case could establish SS as the standard of review for 2A claims, which would be HUGE because it would place 2A claims on the same level as 1A claims.

    Precisely!
    This case could very much make waves.
     

    rockstarr

    Major Deplorable
    Feb 25, 2013
    4,592
    The Bolshevik Lands
    Strict scrutiny is the opposite of "Guns are bad cause the government says so, m'kay?"

    The state must show a compelling interest (easy in this case) but it also but show that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there is no less restrictive way to accomplish the government's interest.

    Those parts are hard. This is setting up to be a big case now, and a prime example of why you must have the money to go all the way. This case could establish SS as the standard of review for 2A claims, which would be HUGE because it would place 2A claims on the same level as 1A claims.

    so then another 2 years back in the district court is the translation?
     

    ar154u

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 23, 2015
    271
    I wonder if this decision shoots down my 14thA theory in regards to CCW's and G&S. The way I'm reading it is the state can decide who gets a CCW and who doesn't as long as the applicants denied aren't similar to those approved. For instance, I am not a business owner so I get denied. A business owner gets approved. We are equal only that we are human. The business owner is different because he owns a business.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    You know what I really like about reading this decision? I can see Baron von Frosh saying all of this stupid stuff, and love watching the Circuit piss all over him.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom