Decision in Kolbe!

[teratos]

I think Blake said to hell with this gave the defendants the benefit and punted to the 4th circuit. The 4th circuit said do your job, apply the correct scrutiny required for constitutional law and try again. It's a win as far as the 4th circuit saying come back after you apply the correct scrutiny. I don't like how the 4th circuit opined on the 14thA question regarding Leo's because it shows the state can categorize people in regards to a tier. Leo's can have AR's because they are better trained. Retired Leo's are better than regular citizens because they are better trained. It's a caste system now.

The decision also gives her guidelines. You can't say the AR is not in common use, standard cap mags are in common use etc. The decision basically says "go apply SS. Oh,you can't ban the AR......good luck!"

Which one has been handling the bulk of this legal work? I already donate to two of these groups. Time for another donation.

NRA-ILA.

 

[BeoBill]

That is about what I'm getting out of this. Still don't understand after 300 posts why all the Fandango.

This is the first time after a LONG dry spell that there's even a chance of reversing an onerous law. There was none before this.

 

[esqappellate]

I don't understand why it needs reopened. Did the judge let the parties know that she was going to use IM? So this time they know that SS will apply and can taper their argument. Seems dumb.

The Court of Appeals simply gave the parties another opportunity. It is up to them to use it or not. I, for one, would like to have a full trial on these issues. That is the only way to resolve credibility issues. When their experts get on the stand, you tear them apart.

 

[engineerbrian]

From what I can figure out, nothing changes now. But, this means a different standard of review must be applied to O'Malley's political football which in all apparent likelyhood will not hold up.

So that means there wont be a run on AK's and M1A's in MD?

 

[Mr H]

That is about what I'm getting out of this. Still don't understand after 300 posts why all the Fandango.

I'm honestly not smacking you here, but I would definitely recommend you take some time to look into the history of the topics and gain some understanding of them.

This place is an amazing resource, and very little here happens in a vacuum.

 

[TxAggie]

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.

Which, in my opinion, should have been the case all along. They are both enumerated rights that forbids the government from infringement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gryphon]

She has to reopen the record. The opinion says as much: "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. In doing so, the parties may look to “a wide range of sources, such as legislative text and history, empirical evidence, case law, and common sense, as circumstances and context require.” Carter I, 669 F.3d at 418." page 46

Oh, see that's what happens when you don't read the opinion first However, if I recall both parties argued both standards, and the facts that would have been applicable to both standards. So I can understand re-briefing to focus the arguments in light of the SS ruling, but to reopen the record? I'll have to think about that. It's kind of giving both sides a second bite at the apple.

 

[Uncle Duke]

STRICT SCRUTINY

Here's a plain English take on what happened today, for guys like me who might struggle with the legal jargon, and what the application of "strict scrutiny" could conceivably come to mean. I'll let the lawyers here decide if below accurately represents "Strict Scrutiny for Dummies".....like me!

http://bearingarms.com/ruling-marylands-assault-weapons-case-gut-gun-control-nationwide/

 

[esqappellate]

Oh, see that's what happens when you don't read the opinion first However, if I recall both parties argued both standards, and the facts that would have been applicable to both standards. So I can understand re-briefing to focus the arguments in light of the SS ruling, but to reopen the record? I'll have to think about that. It's kind of giving both sides a second bite at the apple.

I want a trial. Put their experts on the stand and rip them apart. See if they have any credibility afterwards. Let's expose the law for the fraud that it is.

 

[protegeV]

Would be nice if some Pro-2A billionaire stepped up and helped out. Anonymously if need be.

Especially with the national impact this case could have.

The regular 2A crowd and the lurkers will never raise Bloomberg dough.

That's because, in general, the scales are tipped in our favor.
Suppose they try to ban all semiauto rifles and mags >10rd nationwide. Watch the money come out of the woodwork

 

[teratos]

I want a trial. Put their experts on the stand and rip them apart. See if they have any credibility afterwards. Let's expose the law for the fraud that it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like the decision basically said "an AWB is Unconstitutional on it's face, but take your best shot at justifying it using SS."

 

[Gryphon]

The Court of Appeals simply gave the parties another opportunity. It is up to them to use it or not. I, for one, would like to have a full trial on these issues. That is the only way to resolve credibility issues. When their experts get on the stand, you tear them apart.

Well, if she reopens the record who knows what will come in, and then there won't be any requirement that both sides agree the case is ripe for disposition via summary judgment. This could become quite the circus trial - with lots of clowns to watch.

 

[occbrian]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like the decision basically said "an AWB is Unconstitutional on it's face, but take your best shot at justifying it using SS."

I agree with the good doctor.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

That's because, in general, the scales are tipped in our favor.
Suppose they try to ban all semiauto rifles and mags >10rd nationwide. Watch the money come out of the woodwork

I would like to believe that.

If it did happen, it would money from guys and gals who are getting rich due to gun and ammo and accessories manufacturing profits.

I just don't see a good hearted billionaire riding in on a white horse to help us out.

And there have plenty of times for that to have taken place.


PS: Regarding your donut dilemma. Never go to the Amish Market and buy Cinnamon Sugar Raised donuts. Not sure what they put in them, but I'm pretty sure the DEA should look into it.

 

[esqappellate]

Well, if she reopens the record who knows what will come in, and then there won't be any requirement that both sides agree the case is ripe for disposition via summary judgment. This could become quite the circus trial - with lots of clowns to watch.

Could be. It would be fun. We have better lawyers than they do.

 

[esqappellate]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like the decision basically said "an AWB is Unconstitutional on it's face, but take your best shot at justifying it using SS."

Not quite. It is more like: State, you have to put up and really prove your case, otherwise you lose!

 

[teratos]

Not quite. It is more like: State, you have to put up and really prove your case, otherwise you lose!

This is gonna be really hard. It's not like there have been a bunch of crimes committed with ARs. The judge also stated:
1. They passed the "common use test" used in Heller.
2. ARs have legitimate sporting uses
3. ARs are a choice of some for home defense, then laid out the reasons why
4. Basically compared banning AWs with the banning of handguns as in Heller.

 

[Jim12]

I want a trial. Put their experts on the stand and rip them apart. See if they have any credibility afterwards. Let's expose the law for the fraud that it is.

Absolutely. They won't be spoon-fed and coddled in a protective blanket like those at the MGA hearings.

 

[Boxcab]

I think the AG will go for the En banc. Why submit to a hearing where you must now prove your experts testimony, review the testimony (remember we had an order of magnitude more supporters/testifiers then the Anti's did***) and be held to Strict Scrutiny?

The odds are better to go to an En banc and avoid new testimony, basing your case on the same old data that won you the case originally. They will only have to rehash the same old tripe that has been working elsewhere.

Or am I missing something?


Edit: *** This is why it is important to testify. Even if the GA ignores you, the courts may get a chance to review your testimony.
.

 

[Jim12]

Well, if she reopens the record who knows what will come in, and then there won't be any requirement that both sides agree the case is ripe for disposition via summary judgment. This could become quite the circus trial - with lots of clowns to watch.

Seems there's already a dispute from last time over AR-15's being in "common use." Didn't she even preface her conclusion by staying she "doubted" it? Methinks she just hasn't looked in the right places.