|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,730
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,730 |
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but the district judge it's been sent back down to for reconsideration under strict scrutiny is: U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Blake Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1995. One year after the AWB. ![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Judge_Catherine_C._Blake.jpg) I fully expect another appeal will be necessary.
“ The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Another appeal, regardless of the trial court decision is not only necessary but desired.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
4ager: Excellent post. Nice work on that.
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683 |
I too am obliged for this post, thankee 4ager
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,730
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,730 |
Another appeal, regardless of the trial court decision is not only necessary but desired. Yes, but I wouldn't put it past a Clinton appointee to still find the bans perfectly legit under strict scrutiny, and then we don't have our splits and the Supreme Court could still decide it's not "ripe" enough.
“ The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Another appeal, regardless of the trial court decision is not only necessary but desired. Yes, but I wouldn't put it past a Clinton appointee to still find the bans perfectly legit under strict scrutiny, and then we don't have our splits and the Supreme Court could still decide it's not "ripe" enough. Her ruling is essentially irrelevant at this point, as it will be appealed for a de novo review. It is not her ruling that renders the split, but that of the Appeals Court, and the split is on scrutiny, not on the viability of the ban.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,730
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,730 |
Her ruling is essentially irrelevant at this point, as it will be appealed for a de novo review. It is not her ruling that renders the split, but that of the Appeals Court, and the split is on scrutiny, not on the viability of the ban. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I almost surely am). But if she twists the logic around to where the ban is permissible under strict scrutiny, then our appeal would be less about the level of scrutiny and more about whether AR's and standard magazines are common weapons/etc/etc/etc. The Supreme Court could ignore the scrutiny issue (again), though even then I think they'd be stretching to do that. But if agreeing to ignore the scrutiny issue is what it takes to get 5 votes, I think they would pass on it. There definitely is politics at play in SCOTUS.. Whereas if she rules the bans unconstitutional under strict scrutiny, then Maryland's primary appeal would almost certainly be over the level of scrutiny that should be required. I don't expect both her and the appeals court to uphold a ban under strict scrutiny, but I didn't expect the Supreme Court to let the Highland case with at least 1 split already out there.
“ The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Her ruling is essentially irrelevant at this point, as it will be appealed for a de novo review. It is not her ruling that renders the split, but that of the Appeals Court, and the split is on scrutiny, not on the viability of the ban. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I almost surely am). But if she twists the logic around to where the ban is permissible under strict scrutiny, then our appeal would be less about the level of scrutiny and more about whether AR's and standard magazines are common weapons/etc/etc/etc. The Supreme Court could ignore the scrutiny issue (again), though even then I think they'd be stretching to do that. But if agreeing to ignore the scrutiny issue is what it takes to get 5 votes, I think they would pass on it. There definitely is politics at play in SCOTUS.. Whereas if she rules the bans unconstitutional under strict scrutiny, then Maryland's primary appeal would almost certainly be over the level of scrutiny that should be required. I don't expect both her and the appeals court to uphold a ban under strict scrutiny, but I didn't expect the Supreme Court to let the Highland case with at least 1 split already out there. She could try to twist it. Hell, she could rule than a water gun is ban permissible under strict. The Appeals Court will evaluate her entire ruling under strict and determine whether she applied it correctly and whether her decision is correct. Her ruling at this point is a formality. There is no way the ban passes under strict at the Appeals Court level, and that appeal to the SCOTUS is what matters because THAT gives us the split needed and the 2nd and 7th essentially dared the SCOTUS to take the cases anyway. With the split on scrutiny, they will. At the SCOTUS level, the SCOTUS sets the questions for the case.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,792
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,792 |
Regardless of what level of scrutiny is reached, I find it hard to believe that any party can actually articulate how banning assault rifles serves a compelling government interest (stopping murders) when 2% of murders were committed with rifles.
What they really fear is the application of the reason behind the second amendment, crushing the leviathan by the unwashed masses.
Conrad101st
1/503 Inf., 2nd ID (90-91)
3/327 Inf., 101st ABN (91-92)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Regardless of what level of scrutiny is reached, I find it hard to believe that any party can actually articulate how banning assault rifles serves a compelling government interest (stopping murders) when 2% of murders were committed with rifles.
What they really fear is the application of the reason behind the second amendment, crushing the leviathan by the unwashed masses. Very, very true.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
90 members (10Glocks, Akhutr, 7x57Hunter, batch, BB3, 10gaugemag, 11 invisible),
1,541
guests, and
867
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,492
Posts18,452,227
Members73,901
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
