Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

[Allen65]

Well that was some fireworks show for sure!!!!

I'd use a scatological word rather than "fireworks".

I guess best outcome from this hearing for us is they don't remand back down to Distract and actually write an opinion. But the real hope is in SCOTUS acting on the preliminary actions currently in front of them, even without a final decision.

 

[hillbilly grandpa]

The judges and politicians do NOT want to recognize that the 2A is to provide a means for The People to REVOLT and overthrow a tyrannical government. It is supposed to provide the means for revisiting 1776.

Problem is that the populace itself has gotten comfortable, fat, and lazy, and cannot even contemplate going against a government that "provides for us".

This.

 

[Alutacon]

that one guy sounds like he could play the judge in my cousin vinny pt 2! i hope that guy is on the dissent, because he sure ain't gonna follow bruen.

Lol, he does!

 

[Alutacon]

Am I hearing correctly that he is now hinting towards states have the right to restrict based on public safety risk?

How much more clear does SCOTUS need to be with these clowns?

That's exactly what was being said.

 

[Tower43]

the real public safety risk is these corrupt judges

 

[clandestine]

These judges are grabbing it anything they can to try to restrict the Second Amendment.

I want to say that they are idiots but they're not. They're evil people who don't want to let go of power.

 

[Some Guy]

These judges are grabbing it anything they can to try to restrict the Second Amendment.

I want to say that they are idiots but they're not. They're evil people who don't want to let go of power.

Correct. This is about ethics and moral courage, not intelligence.

 

[sleev-les]

I laughed at the end when the one dingus was asking where the court was going, referencing if they are becoming the new legislative body (I'm paraphrasing the best I can).

No, these morons are there to correct the Legislative body when they write unconstitutional laws.

 

[Some Guy]

I like how one of the commie judges appealed to states' rights when it comes to the Second Amendment. I wonder if he would argue the same about local values on other social topics. Doubtful. It's an example of specious and subjective reasoning. These people are relying upon "EBBH" logic (everything but Bruen or Heller).

Then the State's attorney argues that AR-15's "...aren't well suited for self-defense". He says that an AR-15 is "properly stored" in a safe. Such a cowardly jackass.

 

[Boxcab]

These judges are grabbing it anything they can to try to restrict the Second Amendment.

I want to say that they are idiots but they're not. They're evil people who don't want to let go of power.

Kinda like "Hawaiian History and Tradition!"

They are in their last gasp for life, pulling out any possible argument they can fabricate.

Let them.

The SCOTUS will address them all in their next ruling.



.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[slsc98]

…Then the State's attorney argues that AR-15's "...aren't well suited for self-defense". He says that an AR-15 is "properly stored" in a safe. Such a cowardly jackass.

Holy chit! That whole argument comes out of an actual stand-up comedian‘s act (Jim Jeffries is the main protagonist in the cable series, “Legit”)

So, we’ve reached the point where anti-2A oral arguments before federal courts are being based off plagiarizing comedic acts …

 

[jc1240]

Holy chit! That whole argument comes out of an actual stand-up comedian‘s act (Jim Jeffries is the main protagonist in the cable series, “Legit”)

So, we’ve reached the point where anti-2A oral arguments before federal courts are being based off plagiarizing comedic acts …

I thought you were going to share a comedy bit.

 

[ROBAR35]

+1

+ 1 more

 

[JohnnyE]

I just wish SCOTUS would just say it point blank, that the purpose of 2A is so the American people ARE armed and dangerous, remain the ultimate seat of power in the nation, and government exists at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around.

 

[Apd09]

Listening now, but Mark Smith called it a farce and judges were garbage.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K-Romulus]

Today's argument is hitting the news outfits:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-court-skeptical-challenge-maryland-assault-weapons-ban-2024-03-20/

The article has a lot of good quotes, and puts names to some of the crazier questions and comments from the bench.

Like:

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Albert Diaz said under the position advanced by the gun rights groups, including the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition, if a dangerous weapon is not banned and becomes commonly used, "the cat's out of the bag" and it can never be regulated.

"What about a bazooka that's used for recreational purposes?" Diaz, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, asked. "A tactical nuclear weapon?"

 

[Bob A]

Holy chit! That whole argument comes out of an actual stand-up comedian‘s act (Jim Jeffries is the main protagonist in the cable series, “Legit”)

So, we’ve reached the point where anti-2A oral arguments before federal courts are being based off plagiarizing comedic acts …

I failed to see the humor, though the joke would have been on him if one of the 50% who disliked his argument had taken the time to waste his stupid ass. However, that sort of response is statistically far more likely to come from members of his approving audience.

Never heard of "Legit" and I've been successfully warned off.

 

[rambling_one]

I’ve become jaded with the whole damn process.

 

[RFBfromDE]

Today's argument is hitting the news outfits:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-court-skeptical-challenge-maryland-assault-weapons-ban-2024-03-20/

The article has a lot of good quotes, and puts names to some of the crazier questions and comments from the bench.

Like:

Willful ignorance is what all the cool kids in the judiciary are doing these days.

 

[Steel Hunter]

What are we placing the odds at for remand to district court vs. SCOTUS intervention (or some combination thereof)?