Major Win for Us

[ZigZagZeke]

Just released.

In the case of Kolbe v. O'Malley, the US Fourth Circuit of Appeals overturned a district court decision upholding the Maryland "Firearm Safety Act" which banned scary semi-auto rifles and full capacity magazines.

That law is now null and void and this creates a split between the Fourth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit (which upheld the Highland Park, IL scary gun ban).

We are giddy!


http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=19946

Read More

 

[ZigZagZeke]

And a split between the Fourth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit courts means that the USSC may finally have to rule on a case to resolve the differing interpretations.

 

[nammac]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed...

It's not about flintlocks, muskets or cap and ball firearms...

It's about AR's, AK's and high capacity magazines...

Aren't those similar to the arms that the military use?!?!?

 

[waglockfan]

Yes, they are.
I don't recall reading about duck hunting when I read the Bill of Rights, Mrs. Watts.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Awesome news, thanks for giving us some seldom GOOD NEWS.

You beat me to it Waglockfan.

It ain't bout huntin!!!! By no means!!!!!

 

[Sgt Nambu]

You mean not every judge is an activist judge? Who knew!

 

[rdb241]

A round of drinks for everybody!

 

[CHLChris]

It's not about flintlocks, muskets or cap and ball firearms...

...for if it were about those kinds of arms, then the First Amendment would only protect pamphlets, newspapers, and books made on a printing press.

</whiney voice>"But, the Founders never conceived of a blog on the interwebz. They could never have meant for regular citizens to wield that kind of rhetorical firepower." </end whiney voice>

 

[Sgt Nambu]

"Wield that kind of rhetorical firepower!" LOLOLOL!!!

Good shot!

 

[rdb241]

In all honesty, this has set a precident for the up coming so-called Assault Weapon ban of 2016 for Washington. Not that it will make it off the floor. But now this can be used as a case to overturn any stupid legislation. California and New York...............get on board

 

[Goosebrown]

Fundamental decision. It forces strict scrutiny on laws limiting the 2nd Amendment. Before they used intermediate scrutiny in which they may have been justified in their law. Not now though.

 

[tiggers97]

This is good. Now "perception of public safety" won't be a reason anymore to uphold these junk laws.

 

[nammac]

In all honesty, this has set a precident for the up coming so-called Assault Weapon ban of 2016 for Washington. Not that it will make it off the floor. But now this can be used as a case to overturn any stupid legislation. California and New York...............get on board

Kalifornia will only get on board when Diane Fienstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi et. al. Are finally swept out of office...

Again if you only let those who pay personal income tax or real estate tax to vote, things will change in a hurry....

 

[Caveman Jim]

This may just be a feather in our cap for celebrating today but it would not surprise me to see the SCOTUS come out and renig on all those recent victories before Owebama is shown the door early next year.....
Call me a bird dog but America has been all but comatose by the last 7+ years of this Communist administration!!!

 

[Jamie6.5]

I think y'all oughta read the rest of what's at the link in the OP. Nobody "won" anything. Other than the 4th Circus has remanded the case back to the lower court for strict scrutiny.
They didn't side with the plaintiffs on any of the critical parts of the case.
And they didn't demand the law be set aside until the case is sorted out.

 

[Goosebrown]

They didn't side with the plaintiffs on any of the critical parts of the case.

The "critical" parts of the case were bubblegum wipes. Used bubblegum wipes at that. Vagueness? BS. Unfair application of the law because retired LEOs got to own them? Again BS. No one is EVER going to win a case on that. It was ONLY there to get them to use strict scrutiny. THAT is the win here.

 

[Jamie6.5]

The "critical" parts of the case were bubblegum wipes. Used bubblegum wipes at that. Vagueness? BS. Unfair application of the law because retired LEOs got to own them? Again BS. No one is EVER going to win a case on that. It was ONLY there to get them to use strict scrutiny. THAT is the win here.

By your standards maybe. When the 4th Circus deems the law unconstitutional I'll call it a win.
When modern sporting rifles are again for sale in MA, I'll call it a win.

Until then it's just in limbo.
Not losing doesn't necessarily mean you won, when there is further review to be done.

 

[Goosebrown]

It wasn't a "not loss" it was a clear win by forcing strict scrutiny. I don't think you get how important that is. It has huge implications.

 

[Dave Workman]

It wasn't a "not loss" it was a clear win by forcing strict scrutiny. I don't think you get how important that is. It has huge implications.

Yes, it does:
Maybe this will help out:


Federal Court requires 'strict scrutiny' in AWB challenge

When a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the Maryland ban on so-called "assault weapons" created a substantial burden on the right "to arm oneself at home," it may have set the stage for a legal confrontation that "could have national importance" because of the potential impact on similar bans elsewhere, the Baltimore Sun indicated.

<broken link removed>

 

[Slobray]

I enjoy Chief Judge Traxler's take on the 7th circus' decision.

In other words, under the Seventh Circuit's view, a significant restriction on a fundamental right might be justified by benefits that are quite literally imagined into existence. Needless to say, we see much to question in the Seventh Circuit's decision.

(emphasis mine)

I especially love the way he called out Judge Robert B. King on his leftist tactics and him ruling based on his opinion and not on the Constitution ....

Our distinguished dissenting colleague asserts that we have imprudently and unnecessarily broken with our sister courts of appeal and infers that we will bear some responsibility for future mass shootings. In our view, inferences of this nature have no place in judicial opinions and we will not respond beyond noting this. The meaning of the Constitution does not depend on a popular vote of the circuits and it is neither improper nor imprudent for us to disagree with the other circuits addressing this issue. We are not a rubber stamp. We require strict scrutiny here not because it aligns with our personal policy preferences but because we believe it is compelled by the law set out in Heller and Chester.

Ray