Major Win for Us

[RicInOR]

My news feed has a different name for the case. Kolbe v. Hogan.

via Glenn:
A SMALL CIVIL RIGHTS VICTORY: Kolbe v. Hogan: 4th Circuit requires strict scrutiny for Maryland ban on magazines and semiautomatics. "Today the 4th Circuit decided Kolbe v. Hogan, a Second Amendment challenge to a 2013 Maryland arms prohibition statute. The statute bans the sale of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and also bans many firearms, by labeling them as 'assault weapons.' In a 2-1 decision written by Chief Judge Traxler, the Fourth Circuit held that strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for bans on common arms, such as those at issue in Kolbe. The case was remanded to the district court, which had applied the wrong standard, namely a weak version of intermediate scrutiny."
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/225923/

 

[ZigZagZeke]

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




Ray

I finally had a chance to read the decision in full and I now point to it as an example of why I've usually enjoyed reading the law and the various courts' decisions. It is like watching a master surgeon do surgery. They take apart the issues, and logically examine each piece, and its implications. For my own part, I will invoke language that I first heard in law school and comment that Judge King seems to most closely resemble that portion of the human anatomy which remains permanently puckered.

 

[Dave Workman]

Just one guy talking, but this liberal guilt trip/"blood on your hands" B.S. is precisely why these guys never gain traction with their arguments except among people who think just like they do.
If there's blood on anybody's hands, it's theirs, just like the blood on the soles of their shoes that comes from dancing in the blood of crime victims to advance their gun control agenda.
It's unfortunate that it entered into ths court action. But it does illustrate what the 2A movement is up against.

 

[Slobray]

What aggravates me most about these anti's rulings and dissents is that they are trying to say that the 2A is only for self-defense and the 2A doesn't protect military weapons. They totally try to ignore the true meaning.

Let's be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland's FSA are exceptionally lethal weapons of war. In fact, the most popular of the prohibited semiautomatic rifles, the AR-15, functions almost identically to the military's fully automatic M16. Significantly, the Supreme Court in its seminal Heller decision singled out "M-16 rifles and the like," i.e., arms "that are most useful in military service," as being "dangerous and unusual weapons" not even protected by the Second Amendment.

So, military weapons are not "protected by the Second Amendment" even though the word "Militia" meaning "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency" is in the Second Amendment? I can't understand these people's train of thought. How can these people logically try to justify that kind of thinking?


Ray

 

[Larrytpdx]

I would normally NEVER post any link to the Huffington Post but they have to be choking on this!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...tional-protection_us_56b38ec7e4b08069c7a65c21

 

[kilimanjaro]

Well, it got remanded back to the lower court for application of strict scrutiny, so the weasel court that tried to get around the issue by not playing by the rules can still uphold the crappy law and say he did what the appellate court told him to do. That will add another year to the issue before the appellate court decides if they want to step on him or not, and then it could go to SCOTUS.

So it's not the happy days, feel good ruling we would like to see. It's closer to it that before, but not yet.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Just one guy talking, but this liberal guilt trip/"blood on your hands" B.S. is precisely why these guys never gain traction with their arguments except among people who think just like they do.
If there's blood on anybody's hands, it's theirs, just like the blood on the soles of their shoes that comes from dancing in the blood of crime victims to advance their gun control agenda.
It's unfortunate that it entered into ths court action. But it does illustrate what the 2A movement is up against.

The "blood on your hands" argument is irrelevant to the interpretation of the law. That's why it carries no weight with the other judges.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Part of the problem the anti's have created for themselves is that they've established a whole class of firearms called "assault weapons", and part of the legal analysis is whether or not their new law prohibits a "whole class of firearms". If it does it runs afoul of the 2nd Amendment according to previous decisions.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Wow they get to own M16's!!!!! Awesome!!!!!!!!!

 

[Goosebrown]

I finally had a chance to read the decision in full and I now point to it as an example of why I've usually enjoyed reading the law and the various courts' decisions. It is like watching a master surgeon do surgery. They take apart the issues, and logically examine each piece, and its implications. For my own part, I will invoke language that I first heard in law school and comment that Judge King seems to most closely resemble that portion of the human anatomy which remains permanently puckered.

This is how the 9th court wrote Peruta v San Diego. The two that voted for shall issue wrote it VERY carefully with lots of quotes from Heller and the big minds in law say it is written specifically to appeal to Kennedy since it is probably going to go there in the next year or two.

Reading this is like watching a surgeon. You are right.

 

[The Heretic]

It is clear to me that most in the justice system, from the lowest levels up to the SCOTUS, simply do not understand the US Constitution or its history.

The talk about the 2nd Amendment's purpose to protect our right to home defense is just plain ignorant. Then some go on to rant about the "assault weapons" being lethal weapons of war and so on.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide a balance of power between the governed and the government. As such, it is exactly "lethal weapons of war" that the Second Amendment is all about; "arms", not firearms - i.e., any kind of "arm", any kind of "lethal weapon", not just firearms, that the government can have, so to can the governed.

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, and it isn't about home defense, it is about us, the private citizen, having the same weapons, ranging from a bayonet to a howitzer or RPG or a GAU-8 with an A-10 Warthog wrapped around it, as the government has.

Why?

A balance of power. The government should fear the wrath of the governed, not the other way around (as it is now).

 

[Stomper]

In short, to have the means to stave off institutionalized governmental tyranny.

 

[Liberty Machinist]

Sounds like tyranny is in the form of a $200 tax stamp!

"O-mother may I ?"

 

[308]

The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in the Divine origin. By removing the Creator from our daily affairs, we must then concern ourselves with the opinions of other men and women. I know where my beliefs rest, and I honestly could care less about the opinions of those who ignore what is written by our founding fathers and what has been given to us by our Creator.

 

[Defense Minister]

On Monday, October 19, 2015, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an <broken link removed> upholding the AWB and standard-capacity mag ban in the states of New York and Connecticut stating that their laws do not unreasonably burden the 2nd Amendment. It does appear a SCOTUS showdown is a brewin'.

 

[Diamondback]

Here's the rub... do we WANT that showdown right now, with Scumbag Roberts being a switch hitter and Kennedy deciding how he's going to vote by which way his butt-hairs twitched when he woke up that morning?

Right now it's a Little to Win/MUCH to Lose scenario, and frankly speaking for myself I'd rather wait to toss the dice until we can maybe replace Ginsberg with someone appointed by Cruz or Rubio who'll hopefully be more on-our-side.

 

[PaulB47]

"It is clear to me that most in the justice system, from the lowest levels up to the SCOTUS, simply do not understand the US Constitution or its history."

Oh, they understand it, all right. They just don't like the implications, so they cook up crap like "sporting purposes" and "home defense" to avoid those implications.

As to divine origin of rights, that's fine for believers, but I'm not one. In fact I don't believe in rights at all (an old meme that has been usurped by the state). What keeps us armed is will - the refusal to be disarmed, and the willingness to go to war if they try it. That, and the fear among the ruling class they will either be voted out of office, or strung up like Mussolini, if they get froggy.

 

[dude23]

...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>

The new BS is "Founding Fathers" is misogynistic & gender centric, SJW's are calling for "Founding Parents". Then walked it back after being called out for morons. Amazing these people can't tell for themselves what's totally stupid & what's stupid but acceptable.

 

[RicInOR]

SCOTUS Guts 2nd Amend. By Refusing To Hear Semi-Auto Ban Case

"Today the Supreme Court let stand the Fourth Circuit's holding in Kolbe v. Hogan that semi-automatic rifles are not constitutionally protected "arms," and in doing so declared the Second Amendment guarantees only a second-class right."


National - SCOTUS refuses to hear case against Maryland ban

 

[Diamondback]

Major loss for us, thanks to that dickless idiot Roberts. AGAIN.