ruling here

Still digesting it, but it appears that a Federal Appeals Court struck down the law on constitutional grounds. Ruling also applies to the 10 round magazine limit.

---------

The court ruled that the law needs to meet "strict scrutiny", and does not. That's really sweet.



The case has been remanded to the District Court which upheld the ban, with instructions to reconsider their decision using strict scrutiny.

good news, but rest assured, someone in the Maryland legislature has already put forward a bill to do the same thing. They never give up.

Nice.

This is exactly what we needed because we now have a Circuit split at the Appellate level. The 2nd Circuit upheld Cuomo's ban, and now with the 4th striking down an almost identical ban in MD, the case is "ripe" for the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS has been avoiding another 2A case because of no Circuit splits, but now that there is one they essentially can't avoid it any longer.

I'll dive into this and see whether a level of scrutiny was established by the Court and other factors, but this is EXACTLY what we needed to get a case in front of the SCOTUS and continue pushing for full protection of the 2A.

I do not like that "strict ruling" dicta, though.

I wish the court ruled it had the meet the criterias as ruled upon in Heller, McDonald.

Remanded back to the district court to re-evaluate under strict scrutiny. So not technically struck down, have to see how big of hoops the district court jumps through to try to justify the ban under strict scrutiny.

Good Lord, the list of Amici briefs says volumes:

Supporting the Appellants (pro-2A) -
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA;
STATE OF ALABAMA;
STATE OF ALASKA;
STATE OF ARIZONA;
STATE OF FLORIDA;
STATE OF IDAHO;
STATE OF KANSAS;
STATE OF LOUISIANA;
STATE OF MICHIGAN;
STATE OF MISSOURI;
STATE OF MONTANA;
STATE OF NEBRASKA;
STATE OF NEW MEXICO;
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA;
STATE OF OKLAHOMA;
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;
STATE OF TEXAS;
STATE OF UTAH;
STATE OF WYOMING;
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY;
TRADITIONALIST YOUTH NETWORK, LLC;
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA;
CRPA FOUNDATION;
GUN OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA;
COLORADO STATE SHOOTING ASSOCIATION;
IDAHO STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION;
ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION;
KANSAS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION;
LEAGUE OF KENTUCKY SPORTSMEN, INC.;
NEVADA FIREARMS COALITION;
ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS;
NEW MEXICO SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION;
NEW YORK RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION;
TEXAS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION;
VERMONT FEDERATION OF SPORTSMAN'S CLUBS;
VERMONT RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION;
GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC.;
GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION;
U.S. JUSTICE FOUNDATION;
THE LINCOLN INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION;
THE ABRAHAM LINCOLN FOUNDATION FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH, INC.;
CONSERVATIVE LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND;
INSTITUTE ON THE CONSTITUTION;
CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY;
NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH;
PROJECT 21;
PINK PISTOLS;
WOMEN AGAINST GUN CONTROL;
THE DISABLED SPORTSMEN OF NORTH AMERICA;
LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGAL DEFENSE FUND;
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION NETWORK;
LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA;
INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT EDUCATORS AND TRAINERS ASSOCIATION;
WESTERN STATES SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION



Supporting the Appellees (anti-2A) -
LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE;
MARYLANDERS TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, INCORPORATED;
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE;
STATE OF NEW YORK;
STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
STATE OF CONNECTICUT;
STATE OF HAWAII;
STATE OF ILLINOIS;
STATE OF IOWA;
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS;
STATE OF OREGON;
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FWIW, all three of those non-state entities is almost exclusively funded by Bloomberg. Bloomberg has and does continue to back the AGs in NY, PRK, CT, HI, IL, MA, OR, and DC.

There is a central funding source and threat there, folks. Figure it out.

-------

There it is.

Iowa is anti 2A?

I notice no mention from my state, either way.

Roy Cooper must be going to run for governor.

We need a level of scrutiny case. This sets the table of the 4th Circuit to establish strict scrutiny. The 2nd Circuit went with reasonableness. That level of a split cannot stand, and should not.

It's part of the process of getting the case on scrutiny to the SCOTUS.

You know he is.

Sometimes the mental gymnastics are entertaining.

I don't see how the law can be constitutional. 10 round magazines and semi-auto rifles clearly fall within the logic of Heller. But, as I often say, you'd be surprised how rarely the courts call me for guidance.

Unfortunately, it likely won't happen via this vehicle.

Once ruled upon on remand, it will get appealed again. Partly why I didn't care for this strict scrutiny dicta.

Of course it will get appealed again. The 2d is already in with a reasonableness standard (which is ludicrous). The 4th is telegraphing strict scrutiny (which is appropriate). Circuit split on the way, and with it a SCOTUS review.

Those three SCOTUS nominees that the next POTUS will make - ESPECIALLY replacing Ginsburg and Kennedy - are looming HUGE at this point.

Sometimes the mental gymnastics are entertaining.
========

That they sure are.

4a...where do you see the jurisdictional split?

Any idea how long this will sit back down in district court? I presume there is no need to fight over facts or evidence.. Just a hearing or two to hear arguments and then a couple of months to get an opinion?

And then the appeal process once again after the lower court ruling.

Second Circuit opinion on the combined cases of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Cuomo and Connecticut Citizens' Defense League v. Malloy that upheld the magazine bans and other provisions of the NY and CT laws that are nearly identical to the MD law in question here. The 2nd used a reasonableness standard; clear split on scrutiny.

There is also a 10th Circuit case pending out of CO that challenges the magazine bans and other provisions of their 2A law. The SCOTUS challenge on scrutiny is coming; this case is just part of it and tipping the balance toward sooner rather than later.

And THEN an appeal to the Supreme Court by one side or the other.

Unless it's sent back down to district court again.

It won't be sent back again.

and we know what will happen to the Second Amendment if a dhimmicrat is elected to the White House this year. At least two new judges, cut from the same cloth as Sotomeyer and Kagan.
At that point, it will be useless to even file against the excesses of government.

Exactly. Ginsburg and Kennedy are the first two up to be replaced.

Any further questions as to what is on the line and why ANY R should get the vote in Nov?

There's also the Highland Park case in Illinois through the 7th Circuit that upheld semi-auto rifle ban and magazine limits. That was appealed to the SC, but they declined to hear it. It also didn't use any level of scrutiny, but rather a "reasonableness" test.

So lots of splits, the SC can't put it off forever. The question is which way will the court go when only 2 justices wanted to hear the Highland Park case?

The SCOTUS declined Highland Park because of "ripeness"; at that time, there was no split. The 4th, and likely the 10th, will provide that split against the 2nd and 7th.

Again, take a look at the amici briefs on both sides. WOW!

No. We're a shall issue state.

Then why did your state AG sign on to support the MD magazine restriction and gun ban? Serious question, and one that Iowans might want to raise to that AG of yours.

I guess Iowa will be a "shall issue for a derringer" state if your AG has his way.

Here's the brief your state signed on to.

You guys are SO anti-2A.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Appellees.pdf

Interesting.

So they are essentially supporting a state's rights to restrict the 2nd Amendment.

Not exactly Maryland's restrictions, just that a state can restrict it.

Got it.

I'd rephrase that to say they are supporting a state's right to restrict the 2nd Amendment AT LEAST AS MUCH AS MARYLAND IS RESTRICTING IT. Other restrictions are not out of the question either, obviously.

Exactly.

That pesky Constitution is fine; so long as the states get to infringe upon it as they see fit.

I think that more than a few states tried that with segregation, did they not? How'd that turn out, and would Iowa (and Iowans) support that again?

And that makes it a BETTER argument?

Oh no.. I'm just bashing Iowa as much as possible. It's a Nebraskan's duty to do so.

ROTFLMAO!

Well played, sir.

Iowa is just scared that if you remove some gun restrictions from states that they might have to let Iowans hunt deer with something as dangerous as this as opposed to shotguns:



Thousands of Iowans could die if exposed to high power weapons developed in the 19th century!!!!

Great analysis of this decision:

Big #2A Win – 4th Circuit Applies Strict Scrutiny to Maryland Gun Control Law

Good News here.

But, I won't be surprised if the Supreme Court goes through all kinds of gyrations to avoid hearing this case. They are very good at bobbing and weaving when they want to.

Thanks for the link.

If it was a 2-1 decision in the Appeals, can it be pushed back up there again for an en-banc review? Is it likely to happen?

It's going back up on appeal after the remand ruling so the en-banc review would have to wait until after they rule on the next appeal.

Thanks.. Didn't know if Maryland could stop the strict scrutiny change by asking for an en-banc review or not.