[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bang / Guns Title: People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state's prohibition on what the court called "the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens" amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution. "In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment -- the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home," Chief Judge William Traxler wrote in the divided ruling. Provisions that outlaw these firearms, Traxler wrote, "substantially burden this fundamental right." Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who recently suspended his Democratic presidential campaign, signed Maryland's Firearm Safety Act of 2013 in the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, which spurred similar initiatives in other Democratic-leaning states. The legislation mostly targets specific kinds of semi-automatic firearms -- such as AR-15s and AK-47s -- and large-capacity magazines, and adds certain registration and licensing requirements. But gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, quickly moved to challenge these laws in the courts, claiming that the restrictions they imposed on lawful gun ownership were overly broad and weren't proven to save lives. “"This case was a major victory for the NRA and gun rights advocates." The legal attacks have largely failed. Last October, a federal appeals court in Manhattan upheld the most iconic of these laws -- those passed in New York and Connecticut in direct response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. And in December, the Supreme Court declined to review a ruling out of Illinois that upheld a similar ban on assault weapons. The high court's reluctance to intervene in these disputes has left the Second Amendment in a bit of a state of flux. Since the Supreme Court established in 2008 and 2010 that the amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for self-defense within the home, judges have struggled to apply those decisions to the newer spate of gun legislation. And inconsistent rulings and standards across the country have left the scope of the law unclear. When the Supreme Court refused to take up the Illinois case, Justice Clarence Thomas complained that the Second Amendment was being relegated to "a second-class right." "If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing," he wrote, and added that those earlier decisions enshrining the right to gun ownership shouldn't be expected to "clarify the entire field." The lack of clarity since then underscores why Thursday's decision may be a boon to those who want to see a broader interpretation of the Second Amendment, setting the stage for the next Supreme Court confrontation. "This case was a major victory for the NRA and gun rights advocates," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA who specializes in Second Amendment law. "This opinion is an important one because it subjects important gun control laws to the most strict form of judicial scrutiny." Indeed, the biggest surprise in Chief Judge Traxler's 66-page opinion is the words "strict scrutiny," a stringent constitutional test that most government laws and regulations fail. Other courts have applied more forgiving standards to similar gun legislation and upheld it. The 4th Circuit's decision didn't outright strike down the Maryland legislation. Instead, it instructed a lower court to subject the provision to the higher legal standard, meaning more litigation and the possibility of a future showdown at the Supreme Court -- though maybe not yet, according to Winkler. As if to illustrate the volatile politics and legalities of gun control, dissenting Circuit Judge Robert King all but declared that the court's ruling would lead to the next mass shooting. "Let's be real," King wrote. "The assault weapons banned by Maryland's [law] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war." Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27. it instructed a lower court to subject the provision to the higher legal standard, meaning more litigation and the possibility of a future showdown at the Supreme Court So much for original intent.
#6. To: Roscoe (#1) "So much for original intent." Original intent went out the window with the Heller decision when the court decreed that the second amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms in common use at the time for self-defense within the home. Now the 4th Circuit is saying, "Within that context, apply strict scrutiny". This means the lower court must determine if the law is a) justified by a compelling governmental interest, b) narrowly tailored to achieve that goal, and c) the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Given that "assault weapons" are not used in many crimes, I doubt the law will hold up.
#19. To: misterwhite (#6) Original intent went out the window with the Heller decision I need a few more years to finish being pissed off.
#27. To: Roscoe (#19) "I need a few more years to finish being pissed off." Heller was bad enough, but at least that decision was confined to Washington, DC. But McDonald v. Chicago took that a step further and extended Heller to every state and every city. All this to force one city in one state to allow one individual to own a handgun. He died (illness) four years after the decision, by the way. All those state constitutions that had their own second amendment protections? Rip them up. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution now protects your gun rights and the second amendment will be forever interpreted and defined by 5 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. The sad part? This is what gun owners wanted. The gun-grabbers have got to be laughing their asses off.
Replies to Comment # 27. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution now protects your gun rights and the second amendment will be forever interpreted and defined by 5 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. It's even worse than that. When the Court remanded in McDonald v. Chicago, they gave little in the way of defining their murky judicial modification of the Second Amendment. Black-robed pissants as low down the ladder as individual Federal District Court judges will now interpret the 2nd/14th mutation guided by their personal feelings and policy preferences. Ad hoc all the way.
#30. To: misterwhite (#27) Well, it seems as if once again you are conflating two things as if they were the same. The supremes have had a checkered past, but most all the cases ever brought before it regarding 2A have been to reign in local infringements. The only thing I can guess from all the gnashing of teeth you and your ilk do when this happens is to assume you like local infringements. When the high court steps in and stops places from disarming the populace, people should cheer.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 27. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|