After reading what the 4CA misrepresents as a ruling based on law my head just won't stop spinning.
It takes a great deal of chutzpa(?) to issue this BS. They actually had the audacity to claim intermediate scrutiny and then simply apply (I'm being generous here) Rational basis. They even went so far as to claim that the court has no business interfering with the legislature. If this is true (& in the 4CA I'm afraid it is) then we're doomed. Checks & balances be damned. And we don't have the force of arms to rid ourselves of these worthless dictators.
The structure of the republic is one of soverigns and servants. ONLY the soverigns can bear arms in their own lands. NEVER the servants. But Md (& NYS, Cali, Ill, Hawaii....) politicians and these worthless courts willfully reverse the arrangement. The officals make themselves the soverigns and the people are the servants. This is NOT a republic but a dictatorship. As Chairman Mao said: "All political power grows from the barrel of a gun."
The final insult is that the 4CA ruled that the core holding in Heller is the right to bear arms in one's home. That is NOT the core holding in Heller. The core holding in Heller is that all men have the right to self-defense. The right to bear arms is in support of the right to life, the right to survival. This is a natural, pre-existing, fundamental right. Nowhere in any of the 2CA or 4CA rulings or petitions is this fact ever stated. It needs to be. The state claims it is too dangerous for a man to survive in public. I've never heard such crap.
It is also unfortunate that no one has ever brought up cases like Warren v DC. It is established legal precedent that the state has no duty to "serve & protect" any individual citizen. The duty is only to the public as an entity "at large". This, coupled with no right to self-defense in public means the state disputes your right to survive in public. If it weren't so appalling it would be hillarious.