Martin O'Malley loses

[deadwooddick]

Kolbe v Hogan — 2/5/2016

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on February 4 overturned a federal district court decision that had upheld the 2013 State of Maryland Firearm Safety Act as constitutional under intermediate scrutiny review.

Intermediate scrutiny, according to the Fourth Circuit Court, was the incorrect standard. The majority opinion cited two SCOTUS cases for their reasoning: D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In this 2-1 decision, the justices used "strict scrutiny" to determine that this law was an infringement against the 2nd Amendment.

This law banned Maryland residents from owning any of the large majority of semi-automatic rifles owned by American citizens (exceptions were made for retired law enforcement officers). The FSA also imposed other restrictions, such as banning certain standard-capacity magazines.

This has the potential to change all kinds of future rulings on the 2nd Amendment, as well as setting the stage for a Supreme Court ruling on this particular issue, now that there appear to be conflicting rulings from different Federal District Courts of Appeal.

Sidenote: SCOTUS had been trying to punt the issue of whether there is a right to own assault weapons for sometime; and it did it again with Highland Park. Is it only a matter of time before the high court will have no choice but to take on this hot-potato issue?

Let's hope they do so before SCOTUS is "revised" by a new President.

 

[Cold Bore]

Sidenote: SCOTUS had been trying to punt the issue of whether there is a right to own assault weapons for sometime; and it did it again with Highland Park. Is it only a matter of time before the high court will have no choice but to take on this hot-potato issue?

Let's hope they do so before SCOTUS is "revised" by a new President.

Amen!

They KNOW the correct answer, they are just reluctant to be the ones to have their names attached to putting it into writing and setting the precedent.

 

[Eddie Harren]

Kolbe v Hogan — 2/5/2016

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on February 4 overturned a federal district court decision that had upheld the 2013 State of Maryland Firearm Safety Act as constitutional under intermediate scrutiny review.

Intermediate scrutiny, according to the Fourth Circuit Court, was the incorrect standard. The majority opinion cited two SCOTUS cases for their reasoning: D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In this 2-1 decision, the justices used "strict scrutiny" to determine that this law was an infringement against the 2nd Amendment.

This law banned Maryland residents from owning any of the large majority of semi-automatic rifles owned by American citizens (exceptions were made for retired law enforcement officers). The FSA also imposed other restrictions, such as banning certain standard-capacity magazines.

This has the potential to change all kinds of future rulings on the 2nd Amendment, as well as setting the stage for a Supreme Court ruling on this particular issue, now that there appear to be conflicting rulings from different Federal District Courts of Appeal.

Sidenote: SCOTUS had been trying to punt the issue of whether there is a right to own assault weapons for sometime; and it did it again with Highland Park. Is it only a matter of time before the high court will have no choice but to take on this hot-potato issue?

Let's hope they do so before SCOTUS is "revised" by a new President.

Yes and our predominately Democrat State Legislature just overrode the veto of several bills that our Republican Gov. had rejected. One of the bills, that he vetoed, gave the right to vote to convicted felons once released from prison. The Dems overturned that veto the other day.

 

[riflewoman]

Probably what we'll get is a ruling that gun laws must pass a strict scrutiny which is defined as

Strict Scrutiny

This is the highest level of scrutiny applied by courts to government actions or laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that legislation or government actions which discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, religion, and alienage must pass this level of scrutiny to survive a challenge that the policy violates constitutional equal protection.

This high level of scrutiny is also applied whenever a "fundamental right" is being threatened by a law, like the right to marriage.

Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that:

• There is a compelling state interest behind the challenged policy, and
• The law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve its result.

Most of these laws won't pass this scrutiny. This level would apply because these laws are encroaching on the defined fundamental right of the second amendment.

 

[NewLiberty]

The disturbing thing is it was a 2 to 1 decision. Should have been 3 - 0. "Shall not infringe".

 

[Paddyd]

Probably what we'll get is a ruling that gun laws must pass a strict scrutiny which is defined as

Strict Scrutiny

This is the highest level of scrutiny applied by courts to government actions or laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that legislation or government actions which discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, religion, and alienage must pass this level of scrutiny to survive a challenge that the policy violates constitutional equal protection.

This high level of scrutiny is also applied whenever a "fundamental right" is being threatened by a law, like the right to marriage.

Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that:

• There is a compelling state interest behind the challenged policy, and
• The law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve its result.

Most of these laws won't pass this scrutiny. This level would apply because these laws are encroaching on the defined fundamental right of the second amendment.

While I agree with you in the fact that the laws are contrary to the 2nd Amendment, tell me what laws are compatible with the Constitution??? Is the FBI background check constitutional? I say no. , shall not infringe on the constitutional rights of a FREE CITIZEN means just that. Even felons after time served are FREE CITIZENS... If the constitution required the government to return a man's weapons after he was released from prison in years back, tell me what new amendment to our constitution changed this? The correct answer is NONE. Therefore in my book ANY law infringing on any free man's constitutional rights are illegal unconstitutional laws and therefore null and void. No, I am not a felon advocating for gun rights to felons. Just an American citizen who swore the oath to defend and protect the Constitution on 7 separate occasions, administered by the same government trying in all it's power to render said constitution irrelevant.

 

[22BRGUY]

While I agree with you in the fact that the laws are contrary to the 2nd Amendment, tell me what laws are compatible with the Constitution??? Is the FBI background check constitutional? I say no. , shall not infringe on the constitutional rights of a FREE CITIZEN means just that. Even felons after time served are FREE CITIZENS... If the constitution required the government to return a man's weapons after he was released from prison in years back, tell me what new amendment to our constitution changed this? The correct answer is NONE. Therefore in my book ANY law infringing on any free man's constitutional rights are illegal unconstitutional laws and therefore null and void. No, I am not a felon advocating for gun rights to felons. Just an American citizen who swore the oath to defend and protect the Constitution on 7 separate occasions, administered by the same government trying in all it's power to render said constitution irrelevant.

PERFECT!

 

[jonbearman]

None of the laws on guns as well as many other laws are legal as defined by the scotus. Scoutus technically only can make decisions on admirality laws. That is laws of the sea. If you research the constitution they were set up to handle laws of the sea. We the people have been mislead by history teachings being altered as well as the our government to lead us to believe that the scotus is the final word in relevance of continental law which is handled by the states and common law grand jurys along with common law judges( very few exist) today.

 

[JRS]

None of the laws on guns as well as many other laws are legal as defined by the scotus. Scoutus technically only can make decisions on admirality laws. That is laws of the sea. If you research the constitution they were set up to handle laws of the sea. We the people have been mislead by history teachings being altered as well as the our government to lead us to believe that the scotus is the final word in relevance of continental law which is handled by the states and common law grand jurys along with common law judges( very few exist) today.

http.//www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

 

[deadwooddick]

"… the Democratic-led legislature overrode the Republican Governor's veto of a bill this week allowing (disenfranchised) felons to vote when they are on parole and probation."

This appears to be a roundabout way for Democrats… to allow votes, which has been shown to change the results.

In the 2000 election, George W. Bush won Florida by 537 votes, however 31% of black Floridians were denied the vote due to disenfranchisement.​

1) Would the U.S. (and the world) be a different place… had that 31% been allowed to vote ?

2) does the proposed relief tendered by Maryland's Democratic Legislature extend to restoration of a convicted felon's right to own a firearm, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), "a conviction does not disqualify an individual from possessing firearms if the person convicted "has had civil rights restored."

In 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) "cases based upon a State felony conviction, (federal) courts have uniformly looked to the law of the State where the conviction was obtained to determine whether the defendant's civil rights have been restored and whether such action has nullified the conviction's incidental prohibition on firearms possession."

Convicted felons (maybe) getting guns.

 

[Outrider27]

I left the People's Republic of Maryland in 2003 over things like this (employment issues kept me from leaving sooner - retirement has many advantages). My sympathies to the people that still live there, and a reminder to all too many of the voters there - you reap what you sow, and a few years from now giving convicted felons the right to vote will come back to bite you.

Unfortunately, I'm preaching to the choir with that reminder, because I doubt that anyone from The People's Republic that's on here supported any of the overridden vetoes, especially that one.

 

[noload]

Obama and Hillary get protected with the Secret Service and ar15s, why can't they understand we the people want the same, without the Secret Service.

 

[YEW PLUCKER]

"Therefore in my book ANY law infringing on any free man's constitutional rights are illegal unconstitutional laws and therefore null and void."

I agree with this. If a man has natural rights, lifetime prohibitions are equal to a prior restraint. His rights may be curtailed or constrained for a period of time as punishment for a felony, but after such time his rights should be restored, or he is NOT a free man. As David Codrea says, (paraphrasing) "Any man who cannot be trusted with the exercise of all his rights, should not be without a custodian."