-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
US court says assault ban violates rights . 8-)
- Thread starter fattboyzz
- Start date
its a start
"In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment -- the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home," Chief Judge William Traxler wrote in the divided ruling."
I'm not sure why but reading a Federal Court Judge using the phrase "hearth and home" gives me a little hope that all isn't lost.
I'm not sure why but reading a Federal Court Judge using the phrase "hearth and home" gives me a little hope that all isn't lost.
This is huge.
Alan Gura (of Heller fame) said in an interview I heard years ago that if we could get the Second protected under the strict scrutiny test it would invalidate half of the gun control laws in the US.
I'm amazed that the court actually looked at facts, like the AR-15 being the most popular centerfire rifle in the US means it's hardly 'unusual'.
Alan Gura (of Heller fame) said in an interview I heard years ago that if we could get the Second protected under the strict scrutiny test it would invalidate half of the gun control laws in the US.
I'm amazed that the court actually looked at facts, like the AR-15 being the most popular centerfire rifle in the US means it's hardly 'unusual'.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Messages
- 155,460
- Reaction score
- 435,924
- Location
- Suwanee, Georgia 30024 United States
the another good thing in our corner
Yep, this case is great. All gun control laws, and most other laws for that matter, should be held to the "strict scrutiny" standard.
Every law that threatens jail for somebody based on what kinds of tools or products he owns, how well his doghouse is constructed, and how many lights are required to be operating on your vehicle should all be "strict scrutiny."
The only laws that should not get this high standard of review are laws that are not criminal, or carry only a fine as a penalty, not prison time. Or laws that only cover activity that society has always accepted as being a highly-regulated undertaking, with numerous laws on the subject being expected (i.e. a trash company hauling haz-mat waste).
Every law that threatens jail for somebody based on what kinds of tools or products he owns, how well his doghouse is constructed, and how many lights are required to be operating on your vehicle should all be "strict scrutiny."
The only laws that should not get this high standard of review are laws that are not criminal, or carry only a fine as a penalty, not prison time. Or laws that only cover activity that society has always accepted as being a highly-regulated undertaking, with numerous laws on the subject being expected (i.e. a trash company hauling haz-mat waste).
There is still the possibility that the trial court, when they get this case back on remand, will still find the assault weapon ban DOES pass strict scrutiny, if that law is narrowly-tailored to try to reduce gun violence (certainly that's a compelling governmental interest) while having the lowest possible impact on people's access to guns so that they can exercise their 2A rights.
QUOTE from article:
The 4th Circuit's decision didn't outright strike down the Maryland legislation. Instead, it instructed a lower court to subject the provision to a higher legal standard, meaning more litigation and the possibility of a future showdown at the Supreme Court -- though maybe not yet, according to Winkler.
QUOTE from article:
The 4th Circuit's decision didn't outright strike down the Maryland legislation. Instead, it instructed a lower court to subject the provision to a higher legal standard, meaning more litigation and the possibility of a future showdown at the Supreme Court -- though maybe not yet, according to Winkler.
Similar threads
