US Circuit Court has ruled in our favor

[Damn Yankee]

The Judges say it is against our rights to ban AR'S andAK rifles.

People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules

[cololab]

Any 2nd amendment win is a cause for celebration. Guess we'll have to wait to see what happens if the case is appealed and accepted for review by the full appellate court.

[Ballenxj]

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

The Judges say it is against our rights to ban AR'S andAK rifles.

People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules

YES!!!!!
This "is" cause to celebrate!
I think I will celebrate with a Coke, mashed potatoes, and chicken.

[Ballenxj]

You know on second thought, this victory may be just setting us up for a fall.
No court should be able to choose whether or not we have that right which is God given and natural.
The set up is allowing them that power. I think that they are setting that precedent now, and later if they decide to rule differently, we're screwed!
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy they ruled the way they did, but this is also something to be aware of.

[LoboGunLeather]

Originally Posted by Ballenxj

You know on second thought, this victory may be just setting us up for a fall.
No court should be able to choose whether or not we have that right which is God given and natural.
The set up is allowing them that power. I think that they are setting that precedent now, and later if they decide to rule differently, we're screwed!
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy they ruled the way they did, but this is also something to be aware of.

Our Constitution created 3 separate and co-equal branches of government:

The Legislative branch formulates and enacts laws, and controls the treasury.

The Executive branch implements and enforces the laws.

The Judicial branch interprets and applies the law.

In this case a 3-judge panel of a US Circuit Court of Appeals heard a dispute regarding the constitutionality (fundamental legality) of a law and ruled that the Legislative branch had exceeded its constitutional authority by banning certain arms that have been regularly and widely owned and used by citizens for lawful purposes.

Ruling of the 3-judge panel appears to have been 2 to 1. The full circuit court may, or may not, take up the matter and may, or may not, uphold the position taken by the 3-judge panel. The fact that the panel included the chief judge of that circuit might give some insight on the likely outcome.

The major point of this case, in my opinion, is that the panel chose to apply the most strict standard (in the constitutional sense) of judicial review, which is a goal long pursued by proponents of our Second Amendment rights. Essentially, what the panel has done is to return the case to the trial courts with an admonishment to the effect that such bans, licensing requirements, etc, must be interpreted as undue impositions against a fundamental right, rather than interpreting the case by a lower standard (i.e.: interpreting the restrictions as acceptable because of some speculative benefit for public safety).

The case may be litigated all over again, and could possibly land right back in the circuit court's lap on appeal again depending on how the parties find any subsequent rulings to their liking.

So far it appears that the system is working pretty much as the Founding Fathers intended, and so far the rulings are strongly in favor of individual liberties. It would be nice to be able to say that this decides these matters with finality, but that will never happen. There will always be new attacks on our rights, we will always have to contest those attacks, and the pendulum will continue to move back and forth.

[Old TexMex]

[[^^So far it appears that the system is working pretty much as the Founding Fathers intended, and so far the rulings are strongly in favor of individual liberties. It would be nice to be able to say that this decides these matters with finality, but that will never happen. There will always be new attacks on our rights, we will always have to contest those attacks, and the pendulum will continue to move back and forth.]]

...............

That's right, Lobo. And that's the way the founders meant for it to be. They were well acquainted with the "stability" of government under the rule of despot kings. They knew that for a nation to be strong, every individual would be right, and able, to defend their individual natural rights.

[Ballenxj]

Originally Posted by LoboGunLeather

The major point of this case, in my opinion, is that the panel chose to apply the most strict standard (in the constitutional sense) of judicial review, which is a goal long pursued by proponents of our Second Amendment rights. Essentially, what the panel has done is to return the case to the trial courts with an admonishment to the effect that such bans, licensing requirements, etc, must be interpreted as undue impositions against a fundamental right, rather than interpreting the case by a lower standard (i.e.: interpreting the restrictions as acceptable because of some speculative benefit for public safety).
<---- snip ----->
So far it appears that the system is working pretty much as the Founding Fathers intended, and so far the rulings are strongly in favor of individual liberties. It would be nice to be able to say that this decides these matters with finality, but that will never happen. There will always be new attacks on our rights, we will always have to contest those attacks, and the pendulum will continue to move back and forth.

I'm glad they came to the only right and logical decision. We all knew it, but it scares me that some very rich and powerful people think it was not. They do not want us having that kind of power. You can be assured that this is not over.

[F75gunslinger]

Originally Posted by LoboGunLeather

So far it appears that the system is working pretty much as the Founding Fathers intended, and so far the rulings are strongly in favor of individual liberties.

I disagree. The votes have gone in favor of law abiding gun owners, but in recent years the votes cast have slowly swung closer and closer to being close. It used to be that something like this was almost laughed at, as the courts voted so strongly in favor of gun owners rights. But now ( due mostly to society becoming more urban and suburban based ) the courts are voting differently.

From the article listed in the other post about this subject...

" Judge Robert B. King, the dissenting vote in Thursday’s ruling, wrote that the types of weapons banned by Maryland hardly constitute a Second Amendment violation.

“Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s [law] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war,” Judge King wrote. “I am far from convinced that the Second Amendment reaches the AR-15 and other assault weapons prohibited under Maryland law, given their military-style features, particular dangerousness, and questionable utility for self-defense.”

Judge King said he sees no substantive difference between an automatic rifle, which is banned, and a semiautomatic rifle. Both, he said, can fire dozens of rounds in mere seconds.

He said that by sending the case back to the lower court, the majority judges could be inviting another mass shooting. He went on to list mass shootings: “the next Newtown — or Virginia Tech, or Binghamton, or Fort Hood, or Tucson, or Aurora, or Oak Creek, or San Bernardino.”

His colleagues bristled at what they said was a suggestion that they would have blood on their hands.

“In our view, inferences of this nature have no place in judicial opinions,” they said. "

Too many people ( judges included ) are letting personal opinion sway what should be a cut and dried judicial decision.

[Ballenxj]

Originally Posted by F75gunslinger

" Judge Robert B. King, the dissenting vote in Thursday’s ruling, wrote that the types of weapons banned by Maryland hardly constitute a Second Amendment violation.

“Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s [law] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war,” Judge King wrote. “I am far from convinced that the Second Amendment reaches the AR-15 and other assault weapons prohibited under Maryland law, given their military-style features, particular dangerousness, and questionable utility for self-defense.”

Judge King said he sees no substantive difference between an automatic rifle, which is banned, and a semiautomatic rifle. Both, he said, can fire dozens of rounds in mere seconds.

<--- snip --->

Too many people ( judges included ) are letting personal opinion sway what should be a cut and dried judicial decision.

I agree whole Heartedly with what you are saying.
I can also see that conversations with this Judge King will go circular when it comes to the Second Amendment.
What he needs to realize is that when the 2A was written, the Black powder weapons they were referring to were the equivalent of what the military was using. That was the whole idea.
Also, when the courts have convinced the sheeple that they alone have the power to interpret The Constitution and Bill of Rights, a very dangerous situation has been created.
I digress, as long as they keep reaffirming the correct interpretation, I'm good with it.

[bushmaster1313]

I need to read the decision again. I think the appeals court made some good findings on common use, but remanded it to the district court to consider the constitutionality of the ban under strict scrutiny. This puts the highest burden on the State to prove the law is constitutional.

Stay tuned boys and girls--the shows not over yet.

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

The Judges say it is against our rights to ban AR'S andAK rifles.

People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules

You do understand this only applies in the 4th Circuit, right?

[Ballenxj]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Stay tuned boys and girls--the shows not over yet.

This is also what I have been saying.

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

You do understand this only applies in the 4th Circuit, right?

Link to the fourth courts jurisdiction below.
About the Court
A lot of times though when one of the courts make a ruling on something like this it sets a precedent that other courts often times follow. I guess they assume the original court that made the findings also did the research?
Just for fun, here is a court locator so you can find the one nearest to you.
Court Locator | United States Courts

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by Ballenxj

This is also what I have been saying.


Link to the fourth courts jurisdiction below.
About the Court
A lot of times though when one of the courts make a ruling on something like this it sets a precedent that other courts often times follow. I guess they assume the original court that made the findings also did the research?
Just for fun, here is a court locator so you can find the one nearest to you.
Court Locator | United States Courts

Another value is that if the 4th invalidates the MD statute there will be a split between the 7th and the 4th making a grant of certiorari by SCOTUS more likely.

In English:

The 7th Circuit refused to find the anti AR15 law from the small town in Illinois unconstitutional. The Supreme Court refused to take the appeal of that case.

If the 4th Circuit goes the other way and says that the Maryland statute is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will be more likely to take the Maryland case on appeal.

IMHO a limit on magazines to 10 rounds is likely constitutional. IMHO a ban on AR15's is not constitutional, but the Supreme Court might find that it is.

[Ballenxj]

So now the stage is set for the grand illusion.

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

IMHO, a limit on magazines to 10 is constitutional but a ban on AR15's is not.

How do you figure that? That's like saying you may own only one house, or you can not have more than one dozen eggs in your house at one time.

[DevilDog72]

A win is a win.... take it and enjoy it, there will be more... and more attacks in the future. But pile up the wins, makes defeats harder. We will more than likely have this fight for a long time. Take note of the Bernie Sanders followers, I am beginning to fear for our way of life, our country. It does not resemble the country I served..... so sad. But fight we must and never give in. S e m p e r F i

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by Ballenxj

So now the stage is set for the grand illusion.

How do you figure that? That's like saying you may own only one house, or you can not have more than one dozen eggs in your house at one time.

Legal issues often turn on the distinction between a difference in degree versus a difference in kind.

In Heller, the case where the Supreme Court held that the right of the People to keep and bear arms belonged to people (duh), the case turned in part on the difference between long guns and handguns being a difference in kind. Some people needed the handgun kind of gun to be able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

The difference between a bolt action rifle and a semi-auto rifle able to accept a detachable magazine is also a difference in kind, so banning the Evil Black Rifles might not be Constitutional. Some people need an EBR like some need a handgun.

On the other hand, the difference between a 10 round magazine and a 30 round magazine is merely a difference in degree. You do not need a 30 round magazine to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. So the argument would go.

IMHO, it would be Constitutional, and I might be convinced to support, a law which allowed the possession of 30 round magazines in the home and their use at the range, but which prohibited their unsecured possession outside of those circumstances. This would allow for self defense in the home and practice at the range, and it would make them available to people in times of disaster and other emergent circumstances. However, it would provide a law enforcement tool against those who would engage in drive by shootings or take loaded high cap mags into places where they could commit large scale murder and mayhem.

My two cents worth.
YMMV

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Legal issues often turn on the distinction between a difference in degree versus a difference in kind.

In Heller, the case where the Supreme Court held that the right of the People to keep and bear arms belonged to people (duh), the case turned in part on the difference between long guns and handguns being a difference in kind. Some people needed the handgun kind of gun to be able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

The difference between a bolt action rifle and a semi-auto rifle able to accept a detachable magazine is also a difference in kind, so banning the Evil Black Rifles might not be Constitutional. Some people need an EBR like some need a handgun.

On the other hand, the difference between a 10 round magazine and a 30 round magazine is merely a difference in degree. You do not need a 30 round magazine to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. So the argument would go.

IMHO, it would be Constitutional, and I might be convinced to support, a law which allowed the possession of 30 round magazines in the home and their use at the range, but which prohibited their unsecured possession outside of those circumstances. This would allow for self defense in the home and practice at the range, and it would make them available to people in times of disaster and other emergent circumstances. However, it would provide a law enforcement tool against those who would engage in drive by shootings or take loaded high cap mags into places where they could commit large scale murder and mayhem.

My two cents worth.
YMMV

I read you last paragraph with great interest. I can't help but wonder if you would accept similar restrictions on the First, Fourth or Fifth amendments in that a different standard would be applied at home and outside of the home?

[BC38]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Legal issues often turn on the distinction between a difference in degree versus a difference in kind.

In Heller, the case where the Supreme Court held that the right of the People to keep and bear arms belonged to people (duh), the case turned in part on the difference between long guns and handguns being a difference in kind. Some people needed the handgun kind of gun to be able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

The difference between a bolt action rifle and a semi-auto rifle able to accept a detachable magazine is also a difference in kind, so banning the Evil Black Rifles might not be Constitutional. Some people need an EBR like some need a handgun.

On the other hand, the difference between a 10 round magazine and a 30 round magazine is merely a difference in degree. You do not need a 30 round magazine to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. So the argument would go.

IMHO, it would be Constitutional, and I might be convinced to support, a law which allowed the possession of 30 round magazines in the home and their use at the range, but which prohibited their unsecured possession outside of those circumstances. This would allow for self defense in the home and practice at the range, and it would make them available to people in times of disaster and other emergent circumstances. However, it would provide a law enforcement tool against those who would engage in drive by shootings or take loaded high cap mags into places where they could commit large scale murder and mayhem.

My two cents worth.
YMMV

Also, whether a person has one 30 round mag, three 10 round mags, or six 5 round mags, it isn't going to make any difference to anyone they shoot or even shoot at. The extra 2 seconds it takes to switch a mag isn't going to make any difference either.

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by BC38

Also, whether a person has one 30 round mag, three 10 round mags, or six 5 round mags, it isn't going to make any difference to anyone they shoot or even shoot at. The extra 2 seconds it takes to switch a mag isn't going to make any difference either.

Remember, pro gun people speak of compromise, anti gun people speak of victories. They see every agreement, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant (such as restricting the size of a magazine outside the home) as a win. Its death to the Second Amendment by a thousand cuts. They are very patient and we cannot let our guard down, even for one minute.

[two-bit cowboy]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

... it would be Constitutional, and I might be convinced to support, a law which allowed the possession of 30 round magazines in the home and their use at the range, but which prohibited their unsecured possession outside of those circumstances. This would allow for self defense in the home and practice at the range, and it would make them available to people in times of disaster and other emergent circumstances. However, it would provide a law enforcement tool against those who would engage in drive by shootings or take loaded high cap mags into places where they could commit large scale murder and mayhem.

I'm a bit mystified by this thinking. I recall a time when the term "Saturday Night Special" (a cheap, snub-nosed revolver, by some definers of the term) was a dirty word in the media, and politicians--like now with "assault weapons"--were all over the chart on their too-easily swayed and uninformed, emotional thoughts. "If we get the SNSs out of the criminals' hands, we'll reduce crime," seemed to be the chant. Well that didn't work, and look what it did to the price of J-frames!

The media's (and therefore, politicians') target de jour seems to be whatever weapon(s) created the greatest contemporary news coverage.

No "limit" on a particular weapon is going to change the culture of the criminal. With their fingers in their ears, proponents of "limits" on weapons, or a complete elimination of them, don't get that, and they never will. Every tiny "victory" in their minds gives them hope that they'll eventually reach their goal so they keep striving to do just that.

Following Ballenxj's thought, "What he needs to realize is that when the 2A was written, the Black powder weapons they were referring to were the equivalent of what the military was using,"
we should all be able to go full auto without a license. I like it.

[handejector]

Originally Posted by Collects

Why do I get an infraction for discussing the latest vacancy on the Supreme Court, yet this political thread develops legs?

Bad form.
Answer inbound- wait for it.
Maybe you drifted into general politics. Everything I see here is focused on a GUN issue.

from the TOS-
DO NOT FLAME THE STAFF
Do not post staff complaints on the open forum. They have the final say. Any decision made by the administrators and moderators is final and must be respected. They're charged with making this community as enjoyable for as many people as they possibly can by enforcing our Rules and standards. They cannot always please everyone with the decisions made.
If you receive a Reminder or Infraction, read the Rules before asking why.
If your thread or post is deleted, consult the rules before contacting the staff.

[Old TexMex]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Legal issues often turn on the distinction between a difference in degree versus a difference in kind.

In Heller, the case where the Supreme Court held that the right of the People to keep and bear arms belonged to people (duh), the case turned in part on the difference between long guns and handguns being a difference in kind. Some people needed the handgun kind of gun to be able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

The difference between a bolt action rifle and a semi-auto rifle able to accept a detachable magazine is also a difference in kind, so banning the Evil Black Rifles might not be Constitutional. Some people need an EBR like some need a handgun.

On the other hand, the difference between a 10 round magazine and a 30 round magazine is merely a difference in degree. You do not need a 30 round magazine to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. So the argument would go.

IMHO, it would be Constitutional, and I might be convinced to support, a law which allowed the possession of 30 round magazines in the home and their use at the range, but which prohibited their unsecured possession outside of those circumstances. This would allow for self defense in the home and practice at the range, and it would make them available to people in times of disaster and other emergent circumstances. However, it would provide a law enforcement tool against those who would engage in drive by shootings or take loaded high cap mags into places where they could commit large scale murder and mayhem.

My two cents worth.
YMMV

I am to assume those who would "make them available to people in times of disaster and other imminent circumstances" are the same as those who provided the "Fast and Furious" weapons?

[cmj8591]

With the passing of Antonin Scalia this decision has now been cast in a whole new light. It will surely end up at the SJC and I don't see how the future composition is going to be in our favor. It's more likely than not that the next justice will be appointed by the next Clinton administration. We are in for some dark days my friends.

[ladder13]

This weekend changed everything for the forseeable future.

[DevilDog72]

It is not o v e r not by a long shot. We will prevail my friends, take heart and remember Winston Churchill...." never give in, never give in never, never, never give in....."

We have a majority in the House and Senate.

And not everything has changed, it has only made it more difficult.

Remember, the 2nd A was to keep an over bearing Government at bay not just to provide us the means of personal defense. I believe our Founders provided that the most modern of firearms of the day was our God given right to own and not be infringed... I don't care if it means we have 100+ round magazines... we should be able to have and own the same firearms our military have... without restriction. I will never support or even condone anything less.

I do not believe for a minute we are finished, more interesting yes but, no, its not over yet.