Federal judge upholds strict new Maryland gun laws

[Mark 1911]

When we're surrounded by gloom and despair, agony and tribulation, yeah...good news of this sort is like finding out somebody brought donuts into work this morning and you're the first one there!

Donuts? Oh those donuts. Well, there was this boat accident....

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Donuts? Oh those donuts. Well, there was this boat accident....

Bad thing about being the first one there is escaping the stampede of engineers after they all get the news!

 

[AmmoManAaron]

As I understand it, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that "strict scrutiny" is the standard that should be used in this case, not "intermediate scrutiny" and thus they are sending the case back to the lower court for a more detailed do-over. The determination that "strict scrutiny" is the needed standard is a long-term win because it sets up conflict with other circuits that have held only "intermediate scrutiny" is needed when dealing with 2A issues. The bad news is that they didn't strike the law down as unconstitutional, they just said the lower court erred in the level of scrutiny and that the case needs to be revisited - the lower court *could* still find that the ban is A-OK. From the tone of the ruling, I don't think the Appeals court would like it if the lower court found the ban A-OK, but we'll have to wait and see if the lower court takes the hint. Of course, if the lower court lets the ban stand, the plaintiffs could take it back to the Appeals court and then they would revisit the issue on the merits, rather than the level of scrutiny. What say the INGO lawyers? Did I get the gist of it?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

As I understand it, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that "strict scrutiny" is the standard that should be used in this case, not "intermediate scrutiny" and thus they are sending the case back to the lower court for a more detailed do-over. The determination that "strict scrutiny" is the needed standard is a long-term win because it sets up conflict with other circuits that have held only "intermediate scrutiny" is needed when dealing with 2A issues. The bad news is that they didn't strike the law down as unconstitutional, they just said the lower court erred in the level of scrutiny and that the case needs to be revisited - the lower court *could* still find that the ban is A-OK. From the tone of the ruling, I don't think the Appeals court would like it if the lower court found the ban A-OK, but we'll have to wait and see if the lower court takes the hint. Of course, if the lower court lets the ban stand, the plaintiffs could take it back to the Appeals court and then they would revisit the issue on the merits, rather than the level of scrutiny. What say the INGO lawyers? Did I get the gist of it?

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is the same as yours. I would think under strict scrutiny, they'd be hard pressed to squint and contort a repeat finding.

 

[Alamo]

Some hints on strict scrutiny, perhaps:

(LCM=Larger Capacity Magazine):

Likewise, the record in this case shows unequivocally that LCMs are commonly kept by American citizens, as there are more than 75 million such magazines in circulation in the United States. In fact, these magazines are so common that they are standard. “[O]n a nationwide basis most pistols are manufactured with magazines holding ten to 17 rounds.” J.A. 2122. Even more than 20 years ago, “fully 18 percent of all firearms owned by civilians . . . were equipped with magazines holding more than ten rounds.” Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1261.

Virtually every federal court to have addressed this question has concluded that “magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds are in common use.” Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 25 F. Supp. 3d 1267, 1275 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (noting such magazines comprise “approximately 47 percent of all magazines owned” and number “in the tens-of-millions, even under the most conservative estimates” (internal quotation marks omitted), aff’d, 779 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by inferring from the evidence of record that, at a minimum, magazines are in commonuse.”). “There may well be some capacity above which magazines are not in common use but, if so, the record is devoid of evidence as to what that capacity is; in any event, that capacity surely is not ten.”

In addition, we reject the State’s argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to detachable magazines because magazines are not firearms—that is, detachable magazines do not constitute “bearable” arms that are expressly protected by the Second Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend.

 

[jamil]

We think it is beyond dispute from the record before us, which contains much of the same evidence cited in the aforementioned decisions, that law-abiding citizens commonly possess semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. Between 1990 and 2012, more than 8 million AR- and AK-platform semi-automatic rifles alone were manufactured in or imported into the United States. In 2012, semi-automatic sporting rifles accounted for twenty percent of all retail firearms sales.

For perspective, we note that in 2012, the number of AR- and AK-style weapons manufactured and imported into the United States was more than double the number of Ford F-150 trucks sold, the most commonly sold vehicle in the United States.

It would be interesting if more people were killed with Ford F-150 trucks than "assault" weapons.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He who controls the spice . . . er, the standard of review, controls the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_review

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Oh, btw, what I was saying years ago that if you love the right to arms you would buy as many AR-15s and AK-47s as you could. Yeah, do that.

For perspective, we note that in 2012, the number of AR- and AK-style weapons manufactured and imported into the United States was more than double the number of Ford F-150 trucks sold, the most commonly sold vehicle in the United States.

The more SCARs and ARs that you buy, the more in common use that they are and the more protection they receive.

 

[Mikey1911]

He who controls the spice . . . er, the standard of review, controls the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_review

Can somebody find a pre-spice mass in DC, and then introduce a sufficient quantity of the Water of Life?

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Oh, btw, what I was saying years ago that if you love the right to arms you would buy as many AR-15s and AK-47s as you could. Yeah, do that.

The more SCARs and ARs that you buy, the more in common use that they are and the more protection they receive.

YEP! I did that and now I've moved on to Form 1s for things that the courts said are NOT in common use (notably SBS). Suppressors are booming to the point they could be (or soon will be) considered in common use. With the recent repeal of the Indiana law against SBS, we are moving the ball forward; hopefully the courts would view even that movement as favorable to the "common use" idea. File more Form 1s folks and get more "naughty" guns on the books

 

[Amishman44]

As I understand it, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that "strict scrutiny" is the standard that should be used in this case, not "intermediate scrutiny" and thus they are sending the case back to the lower court for a more detailed do-over. The determination that "strict scrutiny" is the needed standard is a long-term win because it sets up conflict with other circuits that have held only "intermediate scrutiny" is needed when dealing with 2A issues. The bad news is that they didn't strike the law down as unconstitutional, they just said the lower court erred in the level of scrutiny and that the case needs to be revisited - the lower court *could* still find that the ban is A-OK. From the tone of the ruling, I don't think the Appeals court would like it if the lower court found the ban A-OK, but we'll have to wait and see if the lower court takes the hint. Of course, if the lower court lets the ban stand, the plaintiffs could take it back to the Appeals court and then they would revisit the issue on the merits, rather than the level of scrutiny. What say the INGO lawyers? Did I get the gist of it?

Sounds like they're sending it back to the lower court re-consider, but are instructing them to hold a higher degree of scrutiny...so we'll see where it all lands!

People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules

Interestingly...included in the wording by the judge are the instructions to include "strict scrutiny" which is a "consitutional test that most government laws and regulations fail."

 

[AA&E]

That's funny, in all the times I have read the second amendment I just cant recall seeing the words "safe" and "common" mentioned as to what arms are protected.

This line from the article angers me "the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes."


There are hundreds of thousands of these firearms in the USA, and they are seldom used in the commission of a crime. Yet they call upon their liberal bias and "doubt" to advance an infringement against the rights of people. It is appalling how far off the path this nation has strayed. Little by little and piece by piece they are stripping away what once defined this nation and made it unique.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

YEP! I did that and now I've moved on to Form 1s for things that the courts said are NOT in common use (notably SBS). Suppressors are booming to the point they could be (or soon will be) considered in common use. With the recent repeal of the Indiana law against SBS, we are moving the ball forward; hopefully the courts would view even that movement as favorable to the "common use" idea. File more Form 1s folks and get more "naughty" guns on the books

This guy knows what I'm talking about.

 

[cbhausen]

Looks like SCOTUS may hear this:

Court Orders Reconsideration of Maryland Gun Law Ruling - ABC News

Supreme Court likely to hear new ?assault weapons? ban case « Hot Air

Could be "make or break" time for EBRs...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Could be "make or break" time for EBRs...

I think the EBR went overboard long ago. The 6.8 talk, the adoption of the M110, etc. pretty much junked the Enhanced Battle Rifle concept.

 

[cbhausen]

I think the EBR went overboard long ago. The 6.8 talk, the adoption of the M110, etc. pretty much junked the Enhanced Battle Rifle concept.

I saw what you did there... Stealth purple on my part. I'm all for "evil black rifles".

 

[Bennettjh]

It took a year and a half, but the this decision has been appealed and the 4th Circuit has struck down the law restricting "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines in Maryland. Citing the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago decisions, the court ruled that 2A rights deserved strict scrutiny before they can be restricted.

BREAKING: Fourth Circuit Strikes Down Maryland's 'Assault Weapon' and 'High Capacity' Magazine Bans

When we're surrounded by gloom and despair, agony and tribulation, yeah...good news of this sort is like finding out somebody brought donuts into work this morning and you're the first one there!

Very good news!

 

[Lee11b]

and of course...... ma deuce Always use your "EBR's" responsibly....

 

[Lil Bob]

Another reason not to move to the East Coast.

 

[T.Lex]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...-circuit-upholds-maryland-rifle-magazine-ban/

Well, the pendulum has swung back on this case.

Looks like it'll be headed to the Supremes. With luck, Gorsuch will be on the court and participate.