How do you cite this opinion? I never know how to blue book stuff that just has come out.
"The State’s expert Daniel Webster even agreed that it is reasonable to assume that a purpose for keeping one of the prohibited weapons is self-defense in the home."
hahaha...
THANKS, DANIEL!
They'll twist it sideways later...
Vinny DeMarco was unavailable for comment.
Awesome news!!! And thanks for the mostly plain English summary, esqappellate:
SO, by vacating the District Court's decision, it still leaves the law as is - correct?
And now we have to wait for Blake to "re-decide" and figure out how she can word her decision to screw us again and stay true to her liberal task masters so we can go back to Richmond - again - and wait another year for the hearing -again- then wait a year for the decision -again- before it goes.....
See ya back here in 5 years.
Question for you Esq (or anyone else that knows) since the case is remanded back to the District, does it automatically go back to the same judge? Likewise when the District generates a new ruling will it come back to this same panel of 3 Circuit judges?
That is because 2A in MD linked this page on facebook. It should maybe go to WC so not everyone can see the comments.
When it comes to more and more courtrooms, I'm a bird in hand any day of the week.
I could be wrong but that's basically how I am seeing it as well and am not quite sure why all the excitement over nothing imo.
I could be wrong but that's basically how I am seeing it as well and am not quite sure why all the excitement over nothing imo.
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.
For those interested in looking for a meaningful statement to express to their delegates in regards to current and future MD firearm legislation, I present this quote from the opinion. (pg. 45 of 90)
Our distinguished dissenting colleague asserts that we have imprudently and unnecessarily broken with our sister courts of appeal and infers that we will bear some responsibility for future mass shootings. In our view, inferences of this nature have no place in judicial opinions and we will not respond beyond noting this. The meaning of the Constitution does not depend on a popular vote of the circuits and it is neither improper nor imprudent for us to disagree with the other circuits addressing this issue. We are not a rubber stamp. We require strict scrutiny here not because it aligns with our personal policy preferences but because we believe it is compelled by the law set out in Heller and Chester.