Decision in Kolbe!

[BeoBill]

Now, fighting the legislature on passing these bills is almost a no-win situation. Maybe that is why these things have to be fought in court. I really, really, really hope I was wrong about my position that we should have taken this to a referendum. If we win at the judicial level, especially if this goes to SCOTUS, I will be cleaning egg off my face with a grin from ear to ear. I am still trying to come down from cloud 9 after reading about this today.

You do realize that it's virtually impossible to get a referendum started on FSA2013, yes? The process of going through the courts is the one relatively straightforward path that we have to restore Civil Rights quashed by our "legislators".

 

[thomfantomas]

this thread is given me a headache

 

[MDFF2008]

so the one newbie here who wants to fight using the issue using the equal protection challenge? Wasn't that shot down in this decision? Sort of corn-fused.

In what way did you want to challenge on EQ?

 

[RoadDawg]

Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. A famous quip asserts that strict scrutiny is "strict in name, but fatal in practice."

For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have significantly abridged a fundamental right with the law's enactment or have passed a law that involves a suspect classification. Suspect classifications have come to include race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty.

from cornell law

Why would the HQL not be considered a "suspect classification" issue, as noted above?

The fees to apply and qualify for the HQL are frankly an obvious financial hardship for those at or below the poverty level. Poverty level citizens are unfairly placed into a position where paying for the HQL takes away the funds which may have been used to purchase the means of self defense.

Most of these cases are going to come from states like Maryland, California, New York, New Jersey, DC, etc. What gun rights case are you going to take to court in Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Arizona, Texas, etc.? They rarely pass any form of gun control. So, these gun control issues have to be litigated in these extremely blue states. There is no option. Heller came out of DC. McDonald came out of Chicago.

Now, fighting the legislature on passing these bills is almost a no-win situation. Maybe that is why these things have to be fought in court. I really, really, really hope I was wrong about my position that we should have taken this to a referendum. If we win at the judicial level, especially if this goes to SCOTUS, I will be cleaning egg off my face with a grin from ear to ear. I am still trying to come down from cloud 9 after reading about this today.

Of course, the HQL is another issue that bugs the heck out of me.

Again, as I asked before... Maybe you can take a stab at this???

What about the "suspect qualification" issue? What is your take on that as a means to approach the HQL in court?

 

[johnnyb2]

Leo VS Every day Joe

No. LEO = Citizen = Me.

To say that an LEO is more likely to use his legal firearm for the purposes of good is disingenuous. Regular citizens use their firearms to thwart crime and protect themselves all the time. Arguably more so than LEO.

 

[fabsroman]

You do realize that it's virtually impossible to get a referendum started on FSA2013, yes? The process of going through the courts is the one relatively straightforward path that we have to restore Civil Rights quashed by our "legislators".

Please, let's not beat the decaying dead horse's corpse further. What I "realize" .... I realize that several issues have been taken to referendum prior to FSA2013. I realize that a referendum on FSA2013 was really close to receiving the required signatures to get it off the ground with a half ass effort put forth on that. I realize that the referendum ship has sailed. I realize that it would have cost money to educate the people about what the referendum question is really about. I realize that a democratic controlled General Assembly would have framed the question. I realize that a referendum would have bought us at least one more year before FSA2013 would have gone into effect. I realize that a referendum vote would have shown me exactly where this state stands on gun rights, and it would have allowed liberal voters that vote in candidates on more than a single issue, the ability to vote on a single issue. I realize that allowing Maryland citizens to vote on this single issue, gun control, would have told me where the majority of voting Maryland citizens stand on the issue.

You do realize it is going to take a crapload of money to continue to fight this matter? You do realize that this is NOT the final say on this matter. You do realize that the NRA is bank rolling this litigation.

You do realize that it is going to take another crapload of money to fight the HQL issue, correct? An issue that it does not appear the NRA is willing to bank roll.

Yep, there are a lot of things to realize.

The biggest realization is that a judicial decision on this matter will be final for the 4th Circuit, and if it makes it to SCOTUS, it will be final on the entire nation, good or bad.

 

[fabsroman]

Again, as I asked before... Maybe you can take a stab at this???

What about the "suspect qualification" issue? What is your take on that as a means to approach the HQL in court?

There are lots of ways to attack the HQL. Comparing it to a poll tax is another way. The problem comes into play when Maryland says it will alleviate the fee and it will provide the training to those below the poverty line or provide a voucher to pay for the training for those below the poverty line. There are ways Maryland can get around the poverty issue by changing the financial burden of the HQL. Now, whether that will fly is another matter.

Problem is, I do think it is the harder issue for us to win, but I think we have a chance.

 

[tc617]

Yep. Every last damn one of 'em, includin' BOTH the "AK47 in all forms", AND the "avtomat kalashnikov semi-automatic rifle in any format"

Wait, "those two things are the same"?? The hell you say...



This will open the door for other states to get "served" too.

Are you readin' this Mr. "No one needs ten boolits to kill a deaahh"? You're day's comin'.

Does this case have the potential to remove bans on assault weapons prior to FSA'13?

What about the Maryland State Police's list of prohibited/banned assault weapons that Marylanders were not allowed to purchase; for example the Skorpion assault pistol, Bushmaster semi-auto rifle, Street Sweeper shotgun, etc. By applying SS, could the ban on these firearms be removed or would another lawsuit be required?

 

[Rack&Roll]

.

 

[Butcher]

FYI you can stop reading at King's dissent on page 67. Starts off with "Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s FSA are exceptionally lethal weapons of war."

 

[Blacksmith101]

FYI you can stop reading at King's dissent on page 67. Starts off with "Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s FSA are exceptionally lethal weapons of war."

He also make the point that assault rifles have never been used in Maryland for home defense but conveniently ignores they have never been used in a mass murder in Maryland either.

 

[fabsroman]

Does this case have the potential to remove bans on assault weapons prior to FSA'13?

What about the Maryland State Police's list of prohibited/banned assault weapons that Marylanders were not allowed to purchase; for example the Skorpion assault pistol, Bushmaster semi-auto rifle, Street Sweeper shotgun, etc. By applying SS, could the ban on these firearms be removed or would another lawsuit be required?

The case itself might not be able to do that. It all depends on how this goes down at the District Court level. I have not read the opinion yet, but it appears that the AR-15 was mentioned a lot as being commonly owned. I know that was the argument at oral argument at the US District Court level because I was present for that argument.

Now, if the Court holds that the AR-15 falls under the protection afforded Heller as a commonly used firearm, and therefore, it cannot be banned because people use it as protection in their home. That takes care of the AR-15. I think the court would almost have to decide on common usage on a case by case (i.e., firearm by firearm) basis. The Court would have to go down the list of weapons and see if they are commonly used in the USA for self defense.

Can this case result in the finding that the banning of other firearms, pre FSA2013 is unconsitutional, sure. However, I don't think this case is going to get there because those prior laws were probably not at issue in this case. Can the ruling in this case lay the groundwork to get some of those other firearms off of the banned list? Sure. However, who is going to go through the expense of litigation just for a couple of firearms on the assault pistol list. You will also need data to show that those firearms are commonly used for self defense, or at least that they are commonly owned.

Now, the better way for us to approach this is through classes of firearms. For instance, handguns are commonly owned for self defense, long gun semi-automatic rifles are commonly owned for self defense, long gun semi-automatic shotguns are commonly owned for self defense, etc. Trying to argue in favor of weapon classifications would be the best way for us to go, versus a weapon by weapon basis. It would prevent the need to go to court and litigate the commonality of each and every weapon when the legislature attempts to ban them.

Not only that, but arguing in favor of classes of weapons would also help us in the future with newly developed weapons. How can a specific weapon become commonly used in the future if all the blue states ban it as soon as it hits the market.

How this ultimately shakes out remains to be seen.

 

[fabsroman]

He also make the point that assault rifles have never been used in Maryland for home defense but conveniently ignores they have never been used in a mass murder in Maryland either.

I use my AR-15s every day for self defense in my home. They are sitting there just waiting for the moron that decides to come into my house uninvited. No moron has yet to come into my house uninvited. Same goes for my handguns.

When I get my SBR and SBS builds done, they will be sitting waiting too.

Who really knows whether an AR-15 or assault weapon has ever been used in Maryland in self defense. It could have very well happened. Bad guy comes to the door. Good guy answers the door with an AR15 on his shoulder. Bad guy turns and runs and good guy never needs to pull the trigger. The AR15 might have actually saved a life, do to it being black and scary versus a small handgun that the bad guy might have overlooked. Imagine what answering the door with a rocket launcher or howitzer would do. Bad guy would be running for days.

 

[Boondock Saint]

I use my AR-15s every day for self defense in my home. They are sitting there just waiting for the moron that decides to come into my house uninvited. No moron has yet to come into my house uninvited. Same goes for my handguns.

When I get my SBR and SBS builds done, they will be sitting waiting too.

Who really knows whether an AR-15 or assault weapon has ever been used in Maryland in self defense. It could have very well happened. Bad guy comes to the door. Good guy answers the door with an AR15 on his shoulder. Bad guy turns and runs and good guy never needs to pull the trigger. The AR15 might have actually saved a life, do to it being black and scary versus a small handgun that the bad guy might have overlooked. Imagine what answering the door with a rocket launcher or howitzer would do. Bad guy would be running for days.

One would hope a change in underwear would be in order after seeing the business end of a rocket launcher...

 

[CurlyDave]

...Leo's can have AR's because they are better trained. Retired Leo's are better than regular citizens because they are better trained. It's a caste system now.

IANAL, but it seems to me that after the dust clears, veterans would have a potent argument that they were better trained than the average citizen and possibly better trained, or at least more experienced, than retired LE. I suspect that most combat veterans have fired many more thousands of rounds from an AR than the average retired LE. And a lot of these rounds were fired under far more stressful circumstances than any LEO.

I think the court might choke on creating a new class of citizens at that point.

 

[RoadDawg]

I think Blake said to hell with this gave the defendants the benefit and punted to the 4th circuit. The 4th circuit said do your job, apply the correct scrutiny required for constitutional law and try again. It's a win as far as the 4th circuit saying come back after you apply the correct scrutiny. I don't like how the 4th circuit opined on the 14thA question regarding Leo's because it shows the state can categorize people in regards to a tier. Leo's can have AR's because they are better trained. Retired Leo's are better than regular citizens because they are better trained. It's a caste system now.

IANAL, but it seems to me that after the dust clears, veterans would have a potent argument that they were better trained than the average citizen and possibly better trained, or at least more experienced, than retired LE. I suspect that most combat veterans have fired many more thousands of rounds from an AR than the average retired LE. And a lot of these rounds were fired under far more stressful circumstances than any LEO.

I think the court might choke on creating a new class of citizens at that point.

I believe that both of you are making an error in assuming that the "training" referred to, is "training with the firearm". The combat veteran is trained with the firearm and has fired (in many cases) thousands of rounds in combat and training related to combat. There are also many Reservists and other Military Members who have fired thousands of rounds in training as well. But what I believe that you are missing is the fact that they are not talking about "Firearms Training" with regard to actual handling and shooting firearms. Rather, they are talking about training in Laws, Statutes and Policies which apply to the use of a firearm in the defense of others and themselves in a civilian based non-combat situation.

I have no doubt that there are combat veterans who have logged thousands of rounds fired in training and in the field. Hell... I have thousands of rounds logged in training and have never been forced to take one shot at any human target. I have been shot at a few times... The situations did not afford me the conditions to be able to safely return fire at the time. Thankfully I was not hit.

The combat veterans have my gratitude and respect for their service. But respect for and where respect is due seems to be lacking from some folks. Knowing the nomenclature and drills... and being proficient with any firearm is not the same as being trained in the laws, statutes and policies encompassing the use of that firearm in a civil, non-combat situation.

"If I were King"... ALL members of the Military would be afforded the opportunity for classes on the laws of their home states while serving or as a part of their exit training from military service. This training would assist in many different ways.

Side note; Many of the men and women I worked with over the years, served in BOTH capacities, Military AND LE... Funny thing... I never saw anything looking like "US Vs. Them" from ANY of those men and women.

To ALL who serve or have served... Peace, Respect and Thanks for your service,
RD

 

[CurlyDave]

... But what I believe that you are missing is the fact that they are not talking about "Firearms Training" with regard to actual handling and shooting firearms. Rather, they are talking about training in Laws, Statutes and Policies which apply to the use of a firearm in the defense of others and themselves in a civilian based non-combat situation...

I understand the point you are making, but since they are really only talking about "in the home" it is difficult to understand how the "superior training" of retired LE is relevant. Especially when it comes to the part about protection of others.

I would start asking questions about the specific training LE receives about self-defense in their own homes. Secondly, I would ask if it would be sufficient for a citizen to obtain training equal to that received by LE covering only self-defense laws in her own home. This might be a very short course...

 

[Apd09]

You do realize it is going to take a crapload of money to continue to fight this matter? You do realize that this is NOT the final say on this matter. You do realize that the NRA is bank rolling this litigation.

Partially why I just too advantage of the $500 lifetime membership pricing before they raise prices next month.



Sent from a galaxy far, far, away....

 

[teratos]

FYI you can stop reading at King's dissent on page 67. Starts off with "Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s FSA are exceptionally lethal weapons of war."

Yep. Of course the opinion didn't mention the MOST IMPORTANT reason for the 2A.....defense against Tyrannny. Yes, self defense and sporting purposes are all well and good. The Framers intended the Constitution to keep as much power in the hands of the People. Nothing does that better than having politicians surrounded by citizens with weapons of war.

 

[Gryphon]

Yep. Of course the opinion didn't mention the MOST IMPORTANT reason for the 2A.....defense against Tyrannny. Yes, self defense and sporting purposes are all well and good. The Framers intended the Constitution to keep as much power in the hands of the People. Nothing does that better than having politicians [and the LEO as their agents of tyrrany] surrounded by citizens with weapons of war.

Was just getting ready to add this comment to the thread myself Sir.