Court Finds "Assault Weapons" Are Constitutional!

[Aggressive Perfector]

Now we just need the same to happen for commiefornia, New York, ETC.

[sevlex]

Here is an interesting take:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/02...n-control-law/

It is a true oddity of constitutional law that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are almost invariably privileged to strict scrutiny–except for the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment.

This state of affairs has allowed the implementing of constraints on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms that would never have been tolerated in the context of First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, speech, or assembly, or Fourth Amendment rights against governmental search and seizure, Fifth Amendment rights to due process and against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and so forth.

Indeed, Second Amendment advocates have long noted this disparity of treatment, and have long fought to eradicate it. We know full well that should strict scrutiny be applied to the Second Amendment, the vast majority of gun laws currently on the books would inescapably be found to be unconstitutional infringements of the Second Amendment, and discarded.

In short, the application of strict scrutiny to the Second Amendment, just as it is applied to the other rights enumerated in the Constitution, would be a complete game changer on gun rights on a national scale.

Today, the United States Court of Appeals for 4th Circuit did exactly that, applying strict scrutiny to Maryland’s “Firearms Safety Act,” in a two-to-one decision that could change the face of gun laws for Maryland (arguably one of the most anti-gun states in the nation), and perhaps portend similar relief for the beleaguered residents of New York, New Jersey, California, and the few other remaining anti-gun states. This decision is embedded at the bottom of this post.

In brief, the court’s 2-to-1 majority concluded first that the guns and magazines banned by the FSA fall within the scope of the Second Amendment, and second that:

" Strict scrutiny, then, is the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to the ban of semi- automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds."

So, the point is any law that infinges on an enumerated right must be subject to "strict scrutiny". This ruling may be foolishly appealed to SCOTUS by the state. SCOTUS would have to use the "strict scrutiny" and have no choice but to rule against the law, which means ALL similar laws around the country would be overturned.

This is YUGE.

[alismith]

Heard on the local news, tonight, that MD's AG says he isn't going to do anything to change the law as it now stands, meaning he's going to keep the ban on the books in effect, regardless of what the Circuit Court judge says.

[ltorlo64]

Heard on the local news, tonight, that MD's AG says he isn't going to do anything to change the law as it now stands, meaning he's going to keep the ban on the books in effect, regardless of what the Circuit Court judge says.

That is because the ruling was not against what the lower court did but the way the court came to its decision. The case has been sent back to the lower court to use the higher standard of constitutional reading to see if the outcome is the same. So, while the court said that "assault weapons" are protected by the SA, they did not throw out the law. In essence they told the lower court that they did not do the work properly and to do it again. If the court comes up with the same response then this court could come back and tell the court it was wrong, but they are not there yet.

[Krupski]

So unfortunately Maryland and DC are the only two states in the 4th circuit court of appeals that this directly affects, since the rest would never pass this stuff. However now that this is precedent, if a lawsuit was brought up to the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd circuit court of appeals would they fall back on this decision or make their own ruling?

Doesn't matter. Court rulings set precedent.

[tank_monkey]

Doesn't matter. Court rulings set precedent.

Yes. It also helps pro gun lawyers file good suits against other laws in other areas if it's a codified decision somewhere. At the Fed level, there is pressure to not openly contradict other federal rulings (of course, this doesn't mean squat to anti gunners, they don't give a shit).