Federal judge upholds strict new Maryland gun laws - Page 2

Bartholomew Roberts · February 4, 2016, 12:07 PM

Federal Appeals Court reverses District court on summary judgment, remands for appeal of strict scrutiny:

"We first consider which of the two relevant standards of
scrutiny (strict or intermediate scrutiny) should apply.10 The
strict-scrutiny standard requires the government to prove its
restriction is “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.” Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 82
(1997); see Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S.
310, 340 (2010) (explaining strict scrutiny “requires the
Government to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling
interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest”
(internal quotation marks omitted)). To be narrowly tailored,
the law must employ the least restrictive means to achieve the
compelling government interest. See United States v. Playboy
Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000).
Conversely, intermediate scrutiny requires the government to
“demonstrate . . . that there is a reasonable fit between the
challenged regulation and a substantial government objective.”
Chester, 628 F.3d at 683. For several reasons, we find that the
Act’s firearms and magazine bans require strict scrutiny.

As we have noted on previous occasions, “any law that would
burden the ‘fundamental,’ core right of self-defense in the home
by a law-abiding citizen would be subject to strict scrutiny.
But, as we move outside the home, firearm rights have always
been more limited.” United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458,
470 (4th Cir. 2011). “[T]his longstanding out-of-the-home/inthe-home
distinction bears directly on the level of scrutiny
applicable,” id., with strict scrutiny applying to laws
restricting the right to self-defense in the home, see Woollard
v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 878 (4th Cir. 2013) (observing that
restrictions on “the right to arm oneself at home” necessitates
the application of strict scrutiny). Strict scrutiny, then, is
the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to the ban of semiautomatic
rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. See
Friedman, 784 F.3d at 418 (Manion, J., dissenting); cf. Heller
II, 670 F.3d at 1284 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (reading Heller
as departing from traditional scrutiny standards but stating
that “[e]ven if it were appropriate to apply one of the levels
of scrutiny after Heller, surely it would be strict scrutiny
rather than . . . intermediate scrutiny”).

We recognize that other courts have reached different
outcomes when assessing similar bans, but we ultimately find
those decisions unconvincing."

Isk · February 4, 2016, 12:53 PM

Any idea where this leaves the current circuit split on the federal level? 7th and 2nd circuits have applied a lower standard, but the 4th has applied strict scrutiny. Have any other circuits applied strict scrutiny (I feel like maybe one other did, but I don't have time to do the research).

Bartholomew Roberts · February 4, 2016, 02:08 PM

Decision is here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...an_Opinion.pdf

All the circuits claim to be applying strict scrutiny. When they apply it seems to be at question. Some of them seem reluctant to use strict scrutiny in anything short of the same exact facts as Heller. But this is big for the Fourth Circuit, I don't see how any semi-auto or magazine ban can survive strict scrutiny. They'll have to fight this one.

Glenn E. Meyer · February 4, 2016, 05:06 PM

I have deleted a string of messages that were off topic. The issue is Maryland and the decision. It is not about Virginia or other speculations about law in general. Nor is it to rehash what an assault boom-boom means unless you are referring specifically to the definitions in the PDF you can read.

Thanks for the update, Bart!

wogpotter · February 4, 2016, 05:48 PM

And, in the latest zigzag of this never ending mishmash a different judge has flung it back to the 4th circuit for review.

& the beat goes on le-de-da-de dee.

A federal appeals court dealt a potentially-serious blow to Maryland's landmark 2013 gun control law Tuesday, ruling that a lower court was wrong when it upheld the state's ban on assault rifles.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...204-story.html

Bartholomew Roberts · February 4, 2016, 05:53 PM

I've skimmed through the entire decision. I'm impressed that both the dissent and majority actually took the amount of time they did to address various arguments, including the majority's rebuttal of the 7th Circuit in Friedman. The Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit wrote a tremendously strong, pro-Second majority opinion here, even dissenting on the equal protection issue in favor of gun owners.

My initial thoughts are that the Fourth Circuit was clear that not only did strict scrutiny apply; but the very highest application of strict scrutiny applied. There is no way Maryland's FSA can meet that standard. Unless Maryland can get an en banc hearing or the Supreme Court to overturn it, the FSA will be found unconstitutional given the standard the district court was instructed to apply.

The dissent points out the circular logic of the "common use" standard as applied by courts, i.e. machineguns can be banned because they are not in common use bevause they were made illegal before they became commonly used.

Both sides appear to have accepted whatever facts supported their argument without even acknowledging the extent to which there was factual disputes about those facts.

All in all, this should be good news for residents of MD, VA, NC, SC, and WV. However, MD will absolutely have to fight this as if it stands, it creates a circuit split that may prompt Supreme Court review of bans in other states. So this is a must-appeal/must-win for gun banners.

**Spats McGee** · February 5, 2016, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

. . . . it creates a circuit split that may prompt Supreme Court review of bans in other states. So this is a must-appeal/must-win for gun banners.

And for this very same reason, it's a must-win for us. We've waited for years for an appellate court to recognize that strict scrutiny should apply to 2A challenges, as it does with other individual, fundamental rights. While I recognize that taking this to SCOTUS presents some risks for gun rights, having The Big Nine finally settle the scrutiny issue in favor of strict scrutiny would be a huge victory for us.

wogpotter · February 5, 2016, 08:13 AM

Brian Frosh, MD's A.G and a rabid anti-gunner has (of course) appealed the appeal to originally appealed decision that was appealed.
La-de-da-de-dee.

Bartholomew Roberts · February 5, 2016, 08:25 AM

Well, it would be nice to see strict scrutiny applied in any context right now; but I disagree with the general precept behind this test that the right is subject to lesser scrutiny outside the home. And I think the dissent has a valid point that there is no real logical distinction between why an M16 can be banned but an AR15 cannot under the "common use" test described by the majority.

I'd be concerned if this went to SCOTUS, it might give the two-step test more validity than I think it warrants, even if SCOTUS avoids endorsing that part of the decision. And this is also a case we could win and still come out with some troubling dicta. Of course, better to win and have some inconvenient dicta than lose and have inconvenient precedent...

As wogpotter noted, MD AG says "It is on!"*

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2016/020416.htm

*Or he should have said that... I mean if we're going to use "Let's be real" in the dissent opinion, we might as well go full Idiocracy.

zukiphile · February 5, 2016, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

...I disagree with the general precept behind this test that the right is subject to lesser scrutiny outside the home.

My memory is fuzzy at this point, but isn't there either dicta in Heller, or a question/statement from Scalia in oral argument to the effect that the logic behind personal defense requires greater protection of the right to bear arms in public because one would be at greater risk in public?

Al Norris · February 5, 2016, 10:55 AM

When Scalia wrote that the 2A “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” 554 U.S. at 635., Did he actually mean that outside the home was to be evaluated in a lessor context?

So far, all the lower courts have found this to be true and have given less scrutiny to such laws.

There are several things to like about this opinion.

What remains is how the State of Maryland is going to respond. As BR has stated, they can request an en banc hearing or go straight to the SCOTUS. There is a third alternative, they can allow the remand and hope for a new District Court Opinion that weasels it's way past the Strict Scrutiny standard. It's been done before.

Bartholomew Roberts · February 5, 2016, 11:47 AM

Well, anything is certainly possible; but I think the District court is going to find it difficult to pay even lip service to the language from page 45 of the opinion and find the law meets strict scrutiny:

"In this way, Maryland’s outright ban on LCMs and “assault weapons” is akin to a law that “foreclose[s] an entire medium of expression.” City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 55 (1994). Such laws receive exceptionally rigorous review in the analogous context of the First Amendment, id., and we see no reason for a different method here."

If the District Court decides that the law does meet strict scrutiny to the above standard on remand, I can't see that as anything more than a delaying tactic. I mean, that is basically a double "Hawaiian good luck sign" right back at the Circuit Court. If you are going to have to have that fight anyway, you'd better get something worth the irritation you are going to provoke by starting it like that.

**Tom Servo** · February 5, 2016, 11:23 PM

Quote:

We've waited for years for an appellate court to recognize that strict scrutiny should apply to 2A challenges, as it does with other individual, fundamental rights

That's the thing. Heller made it clear the RKBA is an individual right, and Alito stated at least twice in the McDonald decision that the right was fundamental.

I don't see a way they can weasel out of applying strict scrutiny under those conditions.

wogpotter · February 6, 2016, 10:42 AM

With spin, large amounts of it.
The original was based on "extra deadly assault weapons being the preference for most criminal acts due to excessive destructive capacity". Despite the almost total lack of any incidents or evidence in support of the contention.

**Aguila Blanca** · February 6, 2016, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Well, it would be nice to see strict scrutiny applied in any context right now; but I disagree with the general precept behind this test that the right is subject to lesser scrutiny outside the home. And I think the dissent has a valid point that there is no real logical distinction between why an M16 can be banned but an AR15 cannot under the "common use" test described by the majority.

Agreed. The notion that "the" Second Amendment somehow means one thing within the privacy of your home but means something else as soon as you step out the door is like something from the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.

Quote:

I'd be concerned if this went to SCOTUS, it might give the two-step test more validity than I think it warrants, even if SCOTUS avoids endorsing that part of the decision. And this is also a case we could win and still come out with some troubling dicta. Of course, better to win and have some inconvenient dicta than lose and have inconvenient precedent...

Such as Heller and "presumptively lawful" ~~infringements~~ regulations?

kilimanjaro · February 6, 2016, 02:57 PM

Precisely. Add 'reasonable restrictions' to the list, as well as 'compelling public necessity'.

**Aguila Blanca** · February 6, 2016, 07:51 PM

Which leaves us wondering if today's politicians and judges (up to and including the SCOTUS) don't understand "shall not be" or if they don't understand "infringed." The first is legally mandatory language, not optional. The second means "limited" or "restricted." It's rather straightforward English, but this country stopped speaking English a long time ago.

kilimanjaro · February 6, 2016, 08:42 PM

Of course they understand the words. They don't care, it's a political matter, as far as they are concerned.

L2R · February 7, 2016, 08:55 AM

I asked someone close to me who is a part of the bureaucracy and his answer was simple.

We don't care about individuals or their rights.

What we care about is that no one wants to be the one that opens the floodgates and then has to deal the internal guilt and public blame when the next deadly event take place and every one thereafter.

My hope is that this returns to the supreme court and that these latest events pin them down to make a more clear decision that mirrors the constitution.

Armed_Chicagoan · February 7, 2016, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

It's rather straightforward English, but this country stopped speaking English a long time ago.

Some of these judges think "the people" means "state-commanded and controlled militia", apparently they're like Humpty Dumpty in Wonderland, where words mean whatever they want them to mean.

**Aguila Blanca** · February 7, 2016, 10:43 AM

Yes, that "The Constitution is a living document" theory again ...

wogpotter · February 7, 2016, 11:34 AM

As I comment fairly regularly in these type of discussions:
"You can call a house brick a life vest, but in real life it still works more like a boat anchor than a flotation device."

gc70 · February 8, 2016, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Which leaves us wondering if today's politicians and judges (up to and including the SCOTUS) don't understand "shall not be" or if they don't understand "infringed." The first is legally mandatory language, not optional. The second means "limited" or "restricted." It's rather straightforward English, but this country stopped speaking English a long time ago.

Understanding English is not the hard part; trying to make sense of words in a totally alien environment is the problem.

The Second Amendment was written as a clear prohibition against federal government interference in an area perceived to be the domain of the states. But that structure of no federal power or authority was based on the reality of state power and authority. The awkward process of "incorporating" the Bill of Rights through the 14 Amendment creates the problem. If the Second Amendment is applied to the states absolutely, as it was intended to be applied to the federal government, then no level of government would have any power or authority over arms. That result clearly flies in the face of the understanding and intent of the Founders when the Second Amendment was adopted. Thus, the square peg meets the round hole.

**Aguila Blanca** · February 8, 2016, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gc70

If the Second Amendment is applied to the states absolutely, as it was intended to be applied to the federal government, then no level of government would have any power or authority over arms. That result clearly flies in the face of the understanding and intent of the Founders when the Second Amendment was adopted.

Please expand on this. I've read a lot about the Constitution and the pros and cons at the time it was adopted, and I have no idea what your statement means. It seems to imply that the Founders didn't care if the states infringed the RKBA, yet the fact was that virtually all the original thirteen colonies/states either already had a similar (sometimes stronger) prohibition in their constitutions, or adopted something very similar soon after the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified.

Reading contemporaneous writings, it seems clear to me that the Founders absolutely intended that the RKBA should not be infringed -- at any level. What am I missing?

mehavey · February 8, 2016, 06:33 PM

Until the 14th Amendment, to wit:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...."

It is my understanding that until this time, the provisions of the Bill of rights were restriction on the national gov't -- not the individual states. In fact prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, there was no legal definition of a "citizen of the United States", as everyone had primary citizenship in one of the several individual states.

Since that time, the Amendment protections have been gradually extended to cover state actions against their citizens, but even those extensions have tended to be piecemeal, selective, and politically driven.

... please weigh if this is demonstrably not the case....

February 4, 2016, 12:53 PM	#27
Isk Senior Member Join Date: June 28, 2011 Location: Alaska Posts: 206	Any idea where this leaves the current circuit split on the federal level? 7th and 2nd circuits have applied a lower standard, but the 4th has applied strict scrutiny. Have any other circuits applied strict scrutiny (I feel like maybe one other did, but I don't have time to do the research). __________________ The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh

February 4, 2016, 05:06 PM	#29
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	I have deleted a string of messages that were off topic. The issue is Maryland and the decision. It is not about Virginia or other speculations about law in general. Nor is it to rehash what an assault boom-boom means unless you are referring specifically to the definitions in the PDF you can read. Thanks for the update, Bart! __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 4, 2016, 05:48 PM	#30
wogpotter Senior Member Join Date: September 27, 2004 Posts: 4,811	And, in the latest zigzag of this never ending mishmash a different judge has flung it back to the 4th circuit for review. & the beat goes on le-de-da-de dee. A federal appeals court dealt a potentially-serious blow to Maryland's landmark 2013 gun control law Tuesday, ruling that a lower court was wrong when it upheld the state's ban on assault rifles. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...204-story.html __________________ Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”? Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.” Last edited by wogpotter; February 4, 2016 at 05:59 PM.

February 5, 2016, 08:13 AM	#33
wogpotter Senior Member Join Date: September 27, 2004 Posts: 4,811	Brian Frosh, MD's A.G and a rabid anti-gunner has (of course) appealed the appeal to originally appealed decision that was appealed. La-de-da-de-dee. __________________ Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”? Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”

February 5, 2016, 08:25 AM	#34
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Well, it would be nice to see strict scrutiny applied in any context right now; but I disagree with the general precept behind this test that the right is subject to lesser scrutiny outside the home. And I think the dissent has a valid point that there is no real logical distinction between why an M16 can be banned but an AR15 cannot under the "common use" test described by the majority. I'd be concerned if this went to SCOTUS, it might give the two-step test more validity than I think it warrants, even if SCOTUS avoids endorsing that part of the decision. And this is also a case we could win and still come out with some troubling dicta. Of course, better to win and have some inconvenient dicta than lose and have inconvenient precedent... As wogpotter noted, MD AG says "It is on!"* http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2016/020416.htm Or he should have said that... I mean if we're going to use "Let's be real" in the dissent opinion, we might as well go full Idiocracy. Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; February 5, 2016 at 08:35 AM.*

February 4, 2016, 12:07 PM	#26
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Federal Appeals Court reverses District court on summary judgment, remands for appeal of strict scrutiny: "We first consider which of the two relevant standards of scrutiny (strict or intermediate scrutiny) should apply.10 The strict-scrutiny standard requires the government to prove its restriction is “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.” Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 82 (1997); see Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 340 (2010) (explaining strict scrutiny “requires the Government to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest” (internal quotation marks omitted)). To be narrowly tailored, the law must employ the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling government interest. See United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000). Conversely, intermediate scrutiny requires the government to “demonstrate . . . that there is a reasonable fit between the challenged regulation and a substantial government objective.” Chester, 628 F.3d at 683. For several reasons, we find that the Act’s firearms and magazine bans require strict scrutiny. As we have noted on previous occasions, “any law that would burden the ‘fundamental,’ core right of self-defense in the home by a law-abiding citizen would be subject to strict scrutiny. But, as we move outside the home, firearm rights have always been more limited.” United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, 470 (4th Cir. 2011). “[T]his longstanding out-of-the-home/inthe-home distinction bears directly on the level of scrutiny applicable,” id., with strict scrutiny applying to laws restricting the right to self-defense in the home, see Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 878 (4th Cir. 2013) (observing that restrictions on “the right to arm oneself at home” necessitates the application of strict scrutiny). Strict scrutiny, then, is the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to the ban of semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. See Friedman, 784 F.3d at 418 (Manion, J., dissenting); cf. Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1284 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (reading Heller as departing from traditional scrutiny standards but stating that “[e]ven if it were appropriate to apply one of the levels of scrutiny after Heller, surely it would be strict scrutiny rather than . . . intermediate scrutiny”). We recognize that other courts have reached different outcomes when assessing similar bans, but we ultimately find those decisions unconvincing."

February 4, 2016, 02:08 PM	#28
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Decision is here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...an_Opinion.pdf All the circuits claim to be applying strict scrutiny. When they apply it seems to be at question. Some of them seem reluctant to use strict scrutiny in anything short of the same exact facts as Heller. But this is big for the Fourth Circuit, I don't see how any semi-auto or magazine ban can survive strict scrutiny. They'll have to fight this one.

February 4, 2016, 05:53 PM	#31
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	I've skimmed through the entire decision. I'm impressed that both the dissent and majority actually took the amount of time they did to address various arguments, including the majority's rebuttal of the 7th Circuit in Friedman. The Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit wrote a tremendously strong, pro-Second majority opinion here, even dissenting on the equal protection issue in favor of gun owners. My initial thoughts are that the Fourth Circuit was clear that not only did strict scrutiny apply; but the very highest application of strict scrutiny applied. There is no way Maryland's FSA can meet that standard. Unless Maryland can get an en banc hearing or the Supreme Court to overturn it, the FSA will be found unconstitutional given the standard the district court was instructed to apply. The dissent points out the circular logic of the "common use" standard as applied by courts, i.e. machineguns can be banned because they are not in common use bevause they were made illegal before they became commonly used. Both sides appear to have accepted whatever facts supported their argument without even acknowledging the extent to which there was factual disputes about those facts. All in all, this should be good news for residents of MD, VA, NC, SC, and WV. However, MD will absolutely have to fight this as if it stands, it creates a circuit split that may prompt Supreme Court review of bans in other states. So this is a must-appeal/must-win for gun banners.

February 5, 2016, 10:55 AM	#36
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	When Scalia wrote that the 2A “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” 554 U.S. at 635., Did he actually mean that outside the home was to be evaluated in a lessor context? So far, all the lower courts have found this to be true and have given less scrutiny to such laws. There are several things to like about this opinion. What remains is how the State of Maryland is going to respond. As BR has stated, they can request an en banc hearing or go straight to the SCOTUS. There is a third alternative, they can allow the remand and hope for a new District Court Opinion that weasels it's way past the Strict Scrutiny standard. It's been done before.

February 5, 2016, 11:47 AM	#37
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Well, anything is certainly possible; but I think the District court is going to find it difficult to pay even lip service to the language from page 45 of the opinion and find the law meets strict scrutiny: "In this way, Maryland’s outright ban on LCMs and “assault weapons” is akin to a law that “foreclose[s] an entire medium of expression.” City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 55 (1994). Such laws receive exceptionally rigorous review in the analogous context of the First Amendment, id., and we see no reason for a different method here." If the District Court decides that the law does meet strict scrutiny to the above standard on remand, I can't see that as anything more than a delaying tactic. I mean, that is basically a double "Hawaiian good luck sign" right back at the Circuit Court. If you are going to have to have that fight anyway, you'd better get something worth the irritation you are going to provoke by starting it like that.

February 6, 2016, 10:42 AM	#39
wogpotter Senior Member Join Date: September 27, 2004 Posts: 4,811	With spin, large amounts of it. The original was based on "extra deadly assault weapons being the preference for most criminal acts due to excessive destructive capacity". Despite the almost total lack of any incidents or evidence in support of the contention. __________________ Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”? Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”

February 6, 2016, 02:57 PM	#41
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	Precisely. Add 'reasonable restrictions' to the list, as well as 'compelling public necessity'.

February 6, 2016, 07:51 PM	#42
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,459	Which leaves us wondering if today's politicians and judges (up to and including the SCOTUS) don't understand "shall not be" or if they don't understand "infringed." The first is legally mandatory language, not optional. The second means "limited" or "restricted." It's rather straightforward English, but this country stopped speaking English a long time ago.

February 6, 2016, 08:42 PM	#43
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	Of course they understand the words. They don't care, it's a political matter, as far as they are concerned.

February 7, 2016, 08:55 AM	#44
L2R Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2010 Location: North Carolina Posts: 358	I asked someone close to me who is a part of the bureaucracy and his answer was simple. We don't care about individuals or their rights. What we care about is that no one wants to be the one that opens the floodgates and then has to deal the internal guilt and public blame when the next deadly event take place and every one thereafter. My hope is that this returns to the supreme court and that these latest events pin them down to make a more clear decision that mirrors the constitution. __________________ L2R

February 7, 2016, 10:43 AM	#46
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,459	Yes, that "The Constitution is a living document" theory again ...

February 7, 2016, 11:34 AM	#47
wogpotter Senior Member Join Date: September 27, 2004 Posts: 4,811	As I comment fairly regularly in these type of discussions: "You can call a house brick a life vest, but in real life it still works more like a boat anchor than a flotation device." __________________ Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”? Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”

February 8, 2016, 06:33 PM	#50
mehavey Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 6,885	Until the 14th Amendment, to wit: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...." It is my understanding that until this time, the provisions of the Bill of rights were restriction on the national gov't -- not the individual states. In fact prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, there was no legal definition of a "citizen of the United States", as everyone had primary citizenship in one of the several individual states. Since that time, the Amendment protections have been gradually extended to cover state actions against their citizens, but even those extensions have tended to be piecemeal, selective, and politically driven. ... please weigh if this is demonstrably not the case....