Federal judge upholds strict new Maryland gun laws

[Metal god]

I'd also add that those types of stats are rarely officially tracked . Like how many CCW holders have been able to prevent an attack and it never gets reported . I would not want to guess a specific number but would think many . How many CCW holders saw what would have been an imminent attack only to pull there weapon causing the attacker to leave . They then just holstered there firearm went home and moved on in there life .

It how ever has been nice to see that are side has been tracking more and more pro gun stats in the last 10 years and are using them in court .

It also does not help when we have very favorable decisions like we did with the three judge panel ruling on Peruta v Gore at the 9th
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOUR...10-56971-0.pdf
Only to have them reverse it on en-banc review . Before the reversal there were several courts using the three judge panels ruling as president . It was nice to see for that short time the rising tide effect only to have the en-banc panel put up the great wall to stop the imminent flooding that was coming .

So yes I see the point that we may not be seeing the effects as much as we'd expect but does that have to do with the poor wording in heller and Mcdonald or is it the anti's refusing to except the wording and having judges willing to ignore it as well .

[Aguila Blanca]

Paradoxically, my uneducated observation (from afar) is that the situation has improved in Chicago more than it has in Washington, DC. I consider that a paradox simply because it was McDonald that opened the door in Chicago, but McDonald rests on Heller.

We now have (IIRC) five states with "constitutional" carry, where before Heller we had only two.

And, on the flip side, we have Washington state, which is regressing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Constitutional carry laws are local and not based on using the SCOTUS decisions to overturn bad local laws. They are expansion of gun rights in progun venues already existing.

If the SAFE act was broken, that would be something useful.

[natman]

If we look at the laws, bans, permit/license rules and the like - what positive expansion of gun rights have been based on Heller and McD?

Look at it this way - what would gun rights be like now if SCOTUS had ruled that the Second Amendment wasn't an individual right.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Of course, but that wasn't my point.

The risk of a crushing decision was one of the reasons folks didn't want Heller to go forward. For a long time, the NRA feared a decisive gun case would go the wrong way.

This one was 5 to 4 - that is not a resounding victory. It is a target to be overturned as are the decisions that 'conservatives' don't like and preach to voters that they will get those decisions overturned.

I was saying that these two weren't behavioral panaceas across the land. In fact, the following up federal court cases are a mixed bag.

[Metal god]

Until we can get the second thought of in the same ways as any of the other bill of rights amendments we will always have these courts ruling how ever they want . Meaning you don't see CA having a different definition of the 1st then AZ or UT thinking pleading the 5th is different there then if you were in TX . IMHO if it's actually written text it's no longer a states issue to decide how it's interpreted . Could you imagine if each state decided how much freedom of the press is granted or religious worship was allowed .

It just seems to me we need to get over that hurdle first . I get that they all seem to have some restrictions but all states seem to except the federal guidelines of those restrictions . Except when it comes to the 2nd . All of a sudden the 2nd is a states issue and not a federal one .

[alan]

Looking at the above referenced, it appears that gun rights, at least in the areas where this court holds sway, are in trouble, possibly quite serious trouble. Of course, The USSC toss this decision however the USSC seems determined to duck gun rights cases these days, which brings gun owners to the following, looking to The Congress to toss the courts ruling/decision.

With that in mind, it strikes me that the following needs to be done by gun owners. They need to get on to their elected representatives, Senators and Members of The House, pointing out the falicies in the courts ruling, stressing the need for the congress to legislate the 4th Circuit Court's ruling away. Such action, of course, requires work and effort from gun owners, a group of individuals who do not always seem disposed to defend their rights, I don't know why. Personally, I have already done what I have recomended, and will continue to do what I can. The rest of it is in the hands of my fellow gun owners.

[natman]

From the 4th's decision:

That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” —which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. See 554 U.S. at 627 (rejecting the notion that the Second Amendment safeguards “M-16 rifles and the like”).

Here's what Heller actually says:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

Note that the first sentence presents a hypothetical objection and the second sentence refutes it. The 4th has seen fit to take selected words from the first sentence completely out of context and twist them 180 degrees from Heller's actual position on the definition of the meaning of the word "arms":

“Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

“Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.”

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,…and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, …the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

DC v Heller, pages 7-8

The 4th's dubious citation of Heller is so opposed to what Heller actually says that the judges who wrote it must be monumentally stupid, spectacularly dishonest or both.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As I have said repeatedly, judges decide these cases politically/ideologically first and then convolute language and precedent to fit their politics/ideology. So they are not stupid but deliberately attacking gun rights.

Given that such debates have occurred at the level of the SCOTUS decisions, isn't clear yet that the core feelings of the judge is central.

Look at segregation - constitutional and then not - with the same Constitution but a sea change in attitudes.

That's the point.

[alan]

I could be missing a salient point here, perhaps more than one, still I come back to the following. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

1. The congress, via it's legislative power, can essentially declare a judicial decision void, meaningless.
2. I believe that through legislation, it has so done before. Am I wrong here?
3. Given recent actions, inaction should one prefer, I do not know that looking to The Supreme Court would work, though who knows what the makeup of the court might be, by the time it opted to review this case, that is assuming that it entertained appeals.
4. It therefore seems to me that it is up the gun owners of this country to pressure their elected representatives to overturn the offending ruling, which is to describe it in polite terms.
5. That is my take on this thing, and I could be dead wrong, the foregoing being, as noted, simply my view.

[jdc1244]

Looking at the above referenced, it appears that gun rights, at least in the areas where this court holds sway, are in trouble, possibly quite serious trouble.

Disagree.

Guns don’t have ‘rights,’ citizens do – and those rights are not unlimited, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment; our rights are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, such as Maryland’s FSA.

That may change at some point in the future, depending on how the Supreme Court rules – but it’s hyperbolic nonsense to claim that citizens’ Second Amendment rights are in ‘serious trouble.’

...the USSC seems determined to duck gun rights cases these days, which brings gun owners to the following, looking to The Congress to toss the courts ruling/decision.

Disagree.

The Supreme Court isn’t ‘ducking’ anything.

The 4th Circuit’s ruling is in agreement with the 2nd Circuit’s ruling upholding a similar measure, New York’s Safe Act. The High Court rarely reviews cases where the lower courts are in agreement.

…it strikes me that the following needs to be done by gun owners. They need to get on to their elected representatives, Senators and Members of The House, pointing out the falicies in the courts ruling, stressing the need for the congress to legislate the 4th Circuit Court's ruling away.

Couldn’t disagree more.

Indeed, this is a dispute between the state of Maryland and residents of that state who believe their Second Amendment rights have been violated, and have sought relief in Federal court.

States have the right to enact measures as they see fit, reflecting the will of the people of a given state, absent interference from Congress.

The notion of Congress interfering with states’ rights and the judicial process is repugnant to the fundamental tenets of federalism and separation of powers doctrine. For Congress to “legislate the 4th Circuit Court's ruling away” would be an egregious abuse of power by the Legislative Branch of government.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Natman

Note that the first sentence presents a hypothetical objection and the second sentence refutes it. The 4th has seen fit to take selected words from the first sentence completely out of context and twist them 180 degrees from Heller's actual position on the definition of the meaning of the word "arms":

It seems more that this court is twisting the meaning of "like." IMHO, the meaning of "the M16 and the like" in Heller was a reference to function likeness -- firearms with "the switch," offering semi-auto, select-fire, and/or full-auto capability. The only way this court could say that AR-15s are "like" M16s is to be on the basis of external appearance, and that IS a perversion of the substance of Heller.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by alan

1. The congress, via it's legislative power, can essentially declare a judicial decision void, meaningless.

Unless the SCOTUS subsequently looks at the law Congress enacted and determines that the law is contrary to the Constitution.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by jdc1244

Guns don’t have ‘rights,’ citizens do – and those rights are not unlimited, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment;

On this point, I disagree with your disagreement.

I acknowledge that even Heller either stated or implied (don't recall which and I'm too tired to look it up) that the RKBA could be limited. Having acknowledged that, I respectfully submit that saying that was intellectually and linguistically flawed. The Second Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed." By definition, to regulate is to infringe. Of all the rights in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment RKBA is the ONLY right thats says, right in its own language, that it is NOT subject to regulation - reasonable or otherwise.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by alan

...The congress, via it's legislative power, can essentially declare a judicial decision void, meaningless....

Not really. Sometimes a legislature can enact legislation which will avoid a problem posed by a court decision.

I often cite the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) as an example of this phenomenon. It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.

In other words, the Court interpreted "taking for public use" very broadly effectively giving States great latitude. But there was sufficient political support to produce legislation in some State scaling eminent domaine power back from the outer constitutional limit.

[raimius]

JDC, the problem is that the court's ruling flies in the face of a logical reading of the 2nd Amendment, its plain text, AND prior SCOTUS decisions.

our rights are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, such as Maryland’s FSA.

Is basically saying, "Well, if a state legislature wants to ban guns, and claims it's OK, it must be OK."

[alan]

Re guns don't have rights, while I think this is nit picking, alright. I should have said the rights of people. Other than this, having read and I believe understood the court's majority opinion, it strikes me as devoid of logic and common sense, both of which I assume would play a major role, or should, in judicial reasoning and decisions. Of course, I might be wrong here.

[ShootistPRS]

It all comes down to who has the ultimate jurisdiction on what is or is not constitutional.

The answer to that is the same as it has always been. The people retain the right and power to nullify any unlawful act on the basis of law or circumstances. We do that with a single vote of "not guilty" from the jurors box.

That vote takes the power out of the hands of the court, congress or even the president. We the people still hold the ultimate power.

[natman]

Spectacularly dishonest it is then.

I suspected as much. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt with monumentally stupid.

[Tinbucket]

The Judge's ruling does not comport to Law . He made his own Law.
There is a new Sheriff in town and one new Supreme Court Judge soon to be two, that we think will adhere to the Law of the Land, Our Constitution.
I would hope that Sheriffs and County Elected Officials in Maryland would not enforce the State Laws, on this.
There are many People in Maryland, who live rural or small town and are not of the mindset that took over the Eastern Shore 25 years ago, from NY and NJ.
We are at a point in history where those that are able, are going to have to get off the couch or whatever and go to Town Hall Meetings, Council Meetings, and have the starch to stand up for themselves and everyone not there, and deliver better than they can give. Run for local office. Run for Sheriff. You don't have to be law Enforcement.
We need ten times as many Patriots on the line in State Houses, City Councils, County Councils, writing in newspapers, and on local radio and in the legal Profession.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Natman

Note that the first sentence presents a hypothetical objection and the second sentence refutes it. The 4th has seen fit to take selected words from the first sentence completely out of context and twist them 180 degrees from Heller's actual position on the definition of the meaning of the word "arms"

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

It seems more that this court is twisting the meaning of "like." IMHO, the meaning of "the M16 and the like" in Heller was a reference to function likeness -- firearms with "the switch," offering semi-auto, select-fire, and/or full-auto capability. The only way this court could say that AR-15s are "like" M16s is to be on the basis of external appearance, and that IS a perversion of the substance of Heller.

I'll meet you halfway on this; they are perverting the meaning of "arms" as defined in Heller AND they are ignoring the substantial legal difference between a fully automatic M16 and a semiauto AR15.

It wouldn't surprise me if SCOTUS sends this back for reconsideration without even hearing the case via a per curiam opinion, just as they did with Caetano v. Massachusetts in 2015. No matter how an individual Supreme Court justice may feel about the issue at hand, they simply can't allow lower courts to dump on Supreme Court decisions like this. Not if the word "Supreme" is going to mean anything.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by jdc1244

Disagree.

Guns don’t have ‘rights,’ citizens do – and those rights are not unlimited, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment; our rights are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, such as Maryland’s FSA.

In what way, shape, or form is Maryland's FSA "reasonable restrictions?" Subjecting guns to reasonable restrictions would outlaw 99% of all gun laws on the books. Guns can only be restricted reasonably in the same way that speech can be restricted reasonably.

Originally Posted by jdc1244

That may change at some point in the future, depending on how the Supreme Court rules – but it’s hyperbolic nonsense to claim that citizens’ Second Amendment rights are in ‘serious trouble.’

I would say that they are, because the lower courts clearly ignore the Heller decision and twist it to uphold whatever gun control laws that they want.

Originally Posted by jdc1244

Disagree.

The Supreme Court isn’t ‘ducking’ anything.

The 4th Circuit’s ruling is in agreement with the 2nd Circuit’s ruling upholding a similar measure, New York’s Safe Act. The High Court rarely reviews cases where the lower courts are in agreement.

So what? Both lower circuits are clearly wrong and in a very obvious way. A job of the Supreme Court is to overturn cases of the lower courts, regardless of whether they are all in agreement. Precedent is irrelevant if it is based on nonsense. The reason the SCOTUS has ignored it I think is because Scalia I think was antsy on the issue of whether Kennedy would actually strike down assault weapon bans, as it was Kennedy who demanded (from what I've read---could be mistaken) that the "reasonable restrictions" clause be put into the Heller decision.

Of course, all that means is that the gun control states can pass whatever gun control they want and the courts claim it all falls within the purview of "reasonable restrictions."

Originally Posted by jdc1244

Couldn’t disagree more.

Indeed, this is a dispute between the state of Maryland and residents of that state who believe their Second Amendment rights have been violated, and have sought relief in Federal court.

States have the right to enact measures as they see fit, reflecting the will of the people of a given state, absent interference from Congress.

The notion of Congress interfering with states’ rights and the judicial process is repugnant to the fundamental tenets of federalism and separation of powers doctrine. For Congress to “legislate the 4th Circuit Court's ruling away” would be an egregious abuse of power by the Legislative Branch of government.

It has nothing to do with states rights. Especially not when those measures infringe on people's fundamental rights. Then they have no such right, no more than they have a right to allow for segregation, discrimination, restricting right to free speech, privacy, currently abortion, or any of the other protected rights. The fact that the court and gun control proponents have to actively lie and twist facts to even justify such legislation all the more shows the baselessness of it.

[LogicMan]

One problem is this whole notion of "weapons of war." All firearms used by people are weapons of war. They are all either military designs or derived from military designs. There are very, very few firearms, if any, that are not either military designs or designs grounded in military design. Thus ANY gun control law that bans or restricts firearms based on their being "weapons of war" is automatically un-Constitutional.

These facts alone show the absurdity of the court's ruling there. They say AR-15s are close enough to M-16s and thus "most useful weapons for war" and thus can be banned. Well what would they say about the Remington 700, a bolt-action hunting rifle that is among the most widely ever used, itself grounded in a military design as all bolt-actions are (the mechanism is a military design), and currently used by the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps as a SNIPER rifle for decades? What would they say about the common 12 gauge pump-action shot gun, used by the U.S. military in every conflict the nation has been in since WWI, where in WWI it was nicknamed by the Germans as the "trench broom" and they wanted U.S. soldiers captured using it to be tried as war criminals? Or the 1911 pistol, a military design that became the standard sidearm for the U.S. military for decades. Or the 9mm pistol, currently the standard sidearm I believe for the U.S. military? The Remington 700, the 1911, the 9mm, the 12 gauge, all have been used by American civilians for decades. They are among the most common firearms one will find. All are military.

Then look at ammunition. The commonly-used 30.06 ammunition, used a lot for hunting. It used to be the standard ammunition for the U.S. military, used in the M1903 Springfield rifle and the M1 Garand rifle. The .45 caliber cartridge and the 9mm cartridge are also military in origin. I could go on.