Posted on 07/24/2017 10:51:32 AM PDT by PROCON
Pro-gun rally in front of Maryland State House in Annapolis on Feb. 6, 2013 protesting the state’s controversial Firearms Safety Act. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/The Washington Times)
A long-simmering challenge against Maryland’s 2013 Firearms Safety Act has been appealed to the nation’s highest court.
Attorneys for the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation on Friday filed the 325-page petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Stephen Kolbe and a series of gun stores and shooting clubs asking the court to protect popular semi-automatic rifles and magazines from prohibition.
At stake is the 2013 law signed by staunch anti-gun Democrat Gov. Martin O’Malley which banned guns deemed “assault weapons” due to cosmetic characteristics and limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds.
In 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Blake ruled that AR-15 style rifles and others “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms.”
Blake’s ruling was riddled on appeal by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit in 2016 who disagreed with the jurist’s logic. This led to a retrial by a rare en banc panel of the entire court which stood behind the ban in a 10-4 ruling earlier this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at guns.com ...
I’m still moving to Texas.
Is that a retirement plan or something planned for the near future?
Me too!
Men (and women) in black robes are dangerous. By their logic, we can only own black powder muskets, pistols and cannons.
“Is that a retirement plan or something planned for the near future? “
Both. Already retired and getting the house ready to sell.
that cannon sounds like maybe a good idea?
The only Dangerous Gun is the one that blows up in your face when you pull the trigger.
While Britain’s foundries had been perfecting the art of gunmaking for centuries, until the Revolution very few American founders had ever cast cannons. And as tensions between the mother country and the colonies had grown, Britain had banned manufacture of artillery in America, declaring it both illegal and disloyal to cast guns. Nonetheless, with the outbreak of hostilities, the Continental Congress and the governing bodies of the colonies called upon America’s ironmasters to manufacture cannons—and to do so with all haste. At the risk of their lives and property, many complied.
http://www.historynet.com/arming-revolution-continental-army-get-cannons.htm
SCOTUS need not ‘clarify’ the simple English of the 2nd: “Shall NOT be infringed” negates any/all other Socialist pretzel ‘logic’.
I find the “This led to a retrial by a rare en banc panel of the entire court which stood behind the ban in a 10-4 ruling earlier this year.” MUCH more troubling.
But, as noted, expecting politicians to reign in judicial activism, when they themselves agree w/ the black robed tyrants....
Need to start more ‘Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law’ lawsuits. Govt employees have no immunity of office for such illegality.
>
Bit of a risky case. Only two for sure conservatives with Gorsuch as an unknown on this issue but most likely will favor overturning the ban.
>
IMO, not so much. It’s when the damn lawyers create libraries of lawyer-speak do the courts gain the ability to parse ‘IS’ instead of the subject at hand.
The filing should be short and sweet: any\all ‘gun control’ laws are null/void vs. ‘shall not be infringed’.
NOTHING need be brought up re: The People, grammatical contexts and sentence structure, ‘trench sweepers’ vs. WWI, etc.
Either the language stands on its own, or it is yet another example of our lost Republic.
Hence, why the case would NEVER be allowed to wind its way through the courts. It would be THE end-all on the lawsuits.
Gov’t has multiple definitions for almost everything you can think of, except “infringement.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.