MachineHead
NES Member
Good background information if you just tuned in: http://www.marylandshallissue.org/j...er/14-kolbe-v-hogan-formerly-kolbe-v-o-malley
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
milktree's perhaps wrong understanding said:The appellate court told the lower court to try again, giving the 2A rights their proper due (strict scrutiny), which they and the plaintiffs can now do. The result of the second go 'round could be a ruling that AWBs and magazine limits are unconstitutional.
Is this the correct tl;dr version?
Actually, the circuit court said "we don't like this decision so we are going to try to reverse it".That's what happened in the original circuit court 3 judge panel decision. Soon after that, the circuit court said, hey wait, we're gonna have all the judges look at this again. That's the hearing that's happening May 11.
Actually, the circuit court said "we don't like this decision so we are going to try to reverse it".
Slightly different. A portion of the circuit court (a three judge panel that split) didn't like the district court's decision to allow the AWB. Now the entire Circuit - all active judges - has voted to rehear the case so that they can decide if the district court's decision was 'correct'.Crap, now I'm confused again.
The Circuit court didn't like the lower court's decision to allow assault weapon bans?
The Supreme Court has refused to hear “assault weapon” cases in the past. However, previous cases were lower profile and the result of narrow readings, not the backwards interpretation exhibited in Kolbe. In its bravado, the Fourth Circuit may have crossed a bridge too far, sparking national debate and possibly forcing the issue to finally make it to the Supreme Court.
Stevens was replaced by Elena Kagan, a feverish proponent of gun control as former deputy domestic policy adviser for Hillary Clinton. Souter was replaced by Sonia Sotomayor, who opposed applying Heller to state laws in 2009. On this, there hasn’t been much ideological shift. So the real issue here, no surprise, is Supreme Court justice candidate Neil Gorsuch.
Without Gorsuch, it is unlikely certiorari would be granted. Even if it were, and all four of the remaining justices from the Heller majority stuck to their guns, so to speak, it would result in an automatic affirmation of the Fourth Circuit’s decision. There is no question as to where Gorsuch would side, since the National Rifle Association has dubbed him “a bulwark for our Second Amendment rights.”
It is uncertain which justices were missing from the four votes required to hear previous “assault weapon” ban cases before Scalia’s death. It is entirely possible that the same judges were voting for some and against others, for a variety of reasons. It is a distinct possibility that justices who may soon hammer the coffin nail into assault weapon bans for good were merely waiting for the right case in which to do it.
Need to use nuclear option if necessary. If ever, NOW is the time!
“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”--Neil Gorsuch
Great.
I'll give it a 20% chance that he would rule against any state's AWB were it to come to that. Even if Gorsuch viewed a ban on MSRs as an infringement, he might justify the decision as not having been made "lightly."
“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”--Neil Gorsuch
“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”--Neil Gorsuch
Great.
I'll give it a 20% chance that he would rule against any state's AWB were it to come to that. Even if Gorsuch viewed a ban on MSRs as an infringement, he might justify the decision as not having been made "lightly."
Ugh. It seems like things are starting to come to a head around modern sporting rifles. It would be great to get a solid decision in our favor on this, but somehow I have the feeling that whatever happens it will sidestep providing relief for us in MA.
Gorsuch is a taut jurist, but we'll see what nuanced decision-making comes into play when the court is faced with the possibility of striking down a state's AWB with the prospect of that effectively striking down the AWBs of other states, given the power structure in this country hates the very idea the serfs can be armed at all. I don't contend Gorsuch is a bad choice for the RKBA but rather he is about as good as it gets in that regard--which isn't great. Setting extremely low expectations is advisable.IMHO you're reading too far into that statement. I think he's simply being intellectually honest about the fact that, at ground level, there are limited legal reasons for infringement- for example, someone is convicted of a crime and imprisoned. That is still an infringement; although there's also a bunch of fun legal constructs around that; in the respect that someone who is imprisoned is a lesser form of citizen and only partially retains rights.
None of it ultimately matters because if another RKBA case ever makes it to the supreme court in our lifetime, it's not going to be something that is that weak and nuanced that one conservative justice is going to flip on it or cause a shit fest over it. It's going to be something more along the
lines of like "oh, the AG in state X banned a bunch of guns but did not follow protocol for (insert truckload of broken legal principles here) for things
like takings issues, etc. Some of these actions (like Healey's BS) might even get destroyed while dodging the 2nd amendment in the
process.
Also, Gorsuch doesn't strike me as being retarded, either, in terms of actually looking at the law. In order to justify the infringement he would have to ignore things like the whole "guns in common use" bit, and I don't think he's that dense. Contrast that with other jurists when they get questioned about RKBA and they start mumbling ragtime about "public safety interests" and other bullshit, Gorsuch goes straight to a basic reference instead.
Basically, if you think he's going to be less reliable than say, even Anthony Kennedy, I have a nice bridge to sell you. Not to mention Gorsuch is a nice segue into cajoling other justices (like Kennedy) into retiring so a mostly conservative majority can be maintained.
-Mike
Gorsuch is a taut jurist, but we'll see what nuanced decision-making comes into play when the court is faced with the possibility of striking down a state's AWB with the prospect of that effectively striking down the AWBs of other states, given the power structure in this country hates the very idea the serfs can be armed at all. I don't contend Gorsuch is a bad choice for the RKBA but rather he is about as good as it gets in that regard--which isn't great. Setting extremely low expectations is advisable.