Two weeks.So now it has to be scheduled for a new hearing and everyone has to have time to file their briefs and prepare - so we are looking at realistically??? September?
:runsaway:
Two weeks.So now it has to be scheduled for a new hearing and everyone has to have time to file their briefs and prepare - so we are looking at realistically??? September?
Applying strict scrutiny is *huge* As the dissent noted, that standard is "strict" in theory but "fatal in fact" Frosh et al will have very hard time with it.
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.
So here's a thought from FB.
If the 4th says the 2A requires SS, doesn't that mean Woollard should be reheard?
So here's a thought from FB.
If the 4th says the 2A requires SS, doesn't that mean Woollard should be reheard?
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.
Awesome news all around!
Here's a quick question. As a hypothetical.
As it's been noted this hs HUGE implications nationally. More and more 2A cases may have to be subject to the same strict scrutiny if MD has to go through with this. Which may also weigh in on other 2A cases that MD or other states want to implement.
So lets say we live in carzy-backwards land. And the General Assembly decides they want to repeal FSA2013 before the court case comes due for strict scrutiny.
That would pretty much kill the re-trail and may mean that the next time they want to pass something similar they won't have to hold it up to the same strict scrutiny as if they had retried Kolbe.
Am I right?
Meaning. If they repealed the law now. They would be free to draft up something similar. a "kolbe-lite" type law that wouldn't have to be held to strict scrutiny when it eventually goes to trial.
Am I blathering? I might be.
Good job all around folks!
So here's a thought from FB.
If the 4th says the 2A requires SS, doesn't that mean Woollard should be reheard?
So lets say we live in carzy-backwards land. And the General Assembly decides they want to repeal FSA2013 before the court case comes due for strict scrutiny.
That would pretty much kill the re-trail and may mean that the next time they want to pass something similar they won't have to hold it up to the same strict scrutiny as if they had retried Kolbe.
I predict this will go down a lot like other decisions.....DC comes to mind.....
Court remands it back to lower court......lower court drags ass and doesnt really comply
Goes back to appeals court
Over and over until supreme court makes a decision.......
OR....pigs could fly and Congress could impeach the moonbat judge
You are correct that if they repealed the law the case would end. They could then pass a "lite" version. I'm not sure the courts would appreciate these shenanigans.
This does have far-reaching implications. I'm sure CA if looking at this with interest given their brain-damaged lawmakers.
Hoe does this now impact the current general assembly? I know there is no decision, but do we see an increase in bills to try and add more barriers?