Kolbe en banc decision

[Racer Doug14]

I still can't wrap my head around the ignorance of judges that think they were there when the BoR were written. It is such a simple and plainly written amendment. It does not define weapons or dangerousness. Or features and capacity. And let's stop using the MD AG's name as an expletive, he probably gets off on it.

 

[shacklefordbanks]

For all those people who say that nobody needs a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine for home protection, I give you video proof that thay are needed to defend against home invasions.

Recently from the Alamogordo Police Department:
https://www.facebook.com/AlamogordoPoliceDepartment/videos/971566799609595/

The bad guys (and girls) have them. You may need them.

 

[NOVA1]

This decision is unfortunate, but predictable news. At least in most 4th Circuit states (such as Virginia and West Virginia), there are state constitutional amendments independently protecting the right to bear arms. As such, in the event AWB type legislation is attempted (or passed), there is the possibility to state-level constitutional challenges. Maryland, of course, does not have a state constitutional protection for right to bear arms, however.

 

[Mike OTDP]

What we're seeing WRT Heller is the judicial equivalent of the Deep State at work. Heller was perfectly clear, the courts just choose to ignore it...and SCOTUS is currently disinclined to hear another 2A case.

That won't change with Gorsuch's confirmation, he replaces Scalia. I think it would change if Kennedy or one of the hard-core liberals retired.

 

[erwos]

You must not have read the opinion. Not only does it split with the circuits, it conflicts with a holding of Heller. The difference is that they found the firearms do not have 2A protection. Had they simply stuck with the assume they have 2A protection and apply intermediate scrutiny tactic used in the other cases, SCOTUS would likely pass (like it did in the other cases) This case directly conflicts with holding 1B of Heller

"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

There is no mention of how small arms, that the world believes appropriate for military purposes, are not suitable for a citizens' militia.

It would be interesting if SCOTUS remanded with instructions to apply strict scrutiny to military weapons.

 

[TheRealSundance]

It would be interesting if SCOTUS remanded with instructions to apply strict scrutiny to military weapons.

Well let's get Gorlesh in and hopefully another opening to be filled before taking it to scotus

 

[teratos]

You must not have read the opinion. Not only does it split with the circuits, it conflicts with a holding of Heller. The difference is that they found the firearms do not have 2A protection. Had they simply stuck with the assume they have 2A protection and apply intermediate scrutiny tactic used in the other cases, SCOTUS would likely pass (like it did in the other cases) This case directly conflicts with holding 1B of Heller

"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

There is no mention of how small arms, that the world believes appropriate for military purposes, are not suitable for a citizens' militia.

People also forget the Miller case. Sure it is old, but is one of the oldest 2A cases out there. It held that Miller had no business possessing a sawed off shotgun because it had no MILITARY use. That was their litmus test. The 2A is not about hunting, and was not written to ensure the right to defend home and hearth. They didn't put that in because it was assumed to be a natural right.....

 

[SWO Daddy]

Well let's get Gorlesh in and hopefully another opening to be filled before taking it to scotus

Quick, somebody take Ginsburg to Five Guys.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Quick, somebody take Ginsburg to Five Guys.

Who advertises the heart attack on a bun?

 

[krucam]

Who advertises the heart attack on a bun?

http://www.heartattackgrill.com/

 

[fightinbluhen51]

http://www.heartattackgrill.com/

Think we can send one a day to her @ 1 First?

 

[Schipperke]

`````````F

 

[nobis1]

Here is a great article from National Review. David French is a former JAG Officer, and his work is often spot on. He breaks this down well:

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...to Thursday 2017-02-22&utm_term=NR5PM Actives

As a lawyer myself with an interest in constitutional law, this decision is breath taking in its ignorance. That, and resorting to the emotional argument in the beginning as a seeming basis to begin their undermining of a constitutional civil right is frankly unprofessional. Judges are not cheerleaders, they are supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law.

 

[pbharvey]

People also forget the Miller case. Sure it is old, but is one of the oldest 2A cases out there. It held that Miller had no business possessing a sawed off shotgun because it had no MILITARY use. That was their litmus test. The 2A is not about hunting, and was not written to ensure the right to defend home and hearth. They didn't put that in because it was assumed to be a natural right.....

Exactly.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Who in their right mind thinks a .38 special is a suitable firearm to maintain the security of a free State?

Guns secure freedom from tyranny.
Guns suitable for fighting are a logical requirement.

 

[Lloyd]

...one of the hard-core liberals retired.

...or died.

As ignorant as it sounds, I don't care.

Here's to RBG declining health ��

.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

I feel I have read enough of this crap, I feel I could write a brief. That is too much BS. I said it elsewhere, Lawyers have ruined this country. ( MDS members excepted) Some of them any way...eh,, Most of them.. ah,, all but One? No, I am wrong. All the Barristers here are OK.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

Who advertises the heart attack on a bun?

It's the fries, not the burger.

 

[casualmadness]

...or died.

As ignorant as it sounds, I don't care.

Here's to RBG declining health ��

.

I feel the same way.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

People also forget the Miller case. Sure it is old, but is one of the oldest 2A cases out there. It held that Miller had no business possessing a sawed off shotgun because it had no MILITARY use. That was their litmus test. The 2A is not about hunting, and was not written to ensure the right to defend home and hearth. They didn't put that in because it was assumed to be a natural right.....

After this decision, wouldn't Miller now be defunct should the SCOTUS not take the case?

 

[Haides]

...or died.

As ignorant as it sounds, I don't care.

Here's to RBG declining health ��

.