Todd Vandermyde Illinois local NRA rep








 

So rich with info...

The fucking details are overwhelming. Stop with them!

Good for the NRA on banning semi autos!

will this mean SCOTUS have to hear the AWB case because there is a conflict in rulings by two lower courts?

would very much like to know more about this

Hell Yeah!

That could be.... interesting..

OP, stop!  I can only take in so much detail at once!

Koelbe.


Federal court threw out the lower courts decision and sent it back telling them to use strict scrutiny.

breaking



 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/33.1-Kolbe-v-OMalley_Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-The-State-of-West-Virginia-and-20-Other-State-Supporting-Plaintiffs-Appellants.pdf

found it

Decision is attached in a pdf on this forum:



http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=188965

Yep.

You must be mistaken

The NRA doesn't do anything for gun rights, they only send out annoying junk mail and sucker gun owners out of money.

I am sure they will get to it just in time for Chief Justice Obama to hear it.

print it for us broham!

this thread is dildos.

do they still have discretion?  can they choose not to hear the case?

This

formatting nightmare inbound



We first consider which of the two relevant standards of
scrutiny (strict or intermediate scrutiny) should apply.10 The
strict-scrutiny standard requires the government to prove its
restriction is “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.” Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 82
(1997); see Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S.
310, 340 (2010) (explaining strict scrutiny “requires the
Government to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling
interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest”
(internal quotation marks omitted)). To be narrowly tailored,
the law must employ the least restrictive means to achieve the
compelling government interest. See United States v. Playboy
Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000).
Conversely, intermediate scrutiny requires the government to
“demonstrate . . . that there is a reasonable fit between the
challenged regulation and a substantial government objective.”
Chester, 628 F.3d at 683. For several reasons, we find that the
Act’s firearms and magazine bans require strict scrutiny.

As we have noted on previous occasions, “any law that would
burden the ‘fundamental,’ core right of self-defense in the home
by a law-abiding citizen would be subject to strict scrutiny.
But, as we move outside the home, firearm rights have always
been more limited.” United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458,
470 (4th Cir. 2011). “[T]his longstanding out-of-the-home/inthe-home
distinction bears directly on the level of scrutiny
applicable,” id., with strict scrutiny applying to laws
restricting the right to self-defense in the home, see Woollard
v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 878 (4th Cir. 2013) (observing that
restrictions on “the right to arm oneself at home” necessitates
the application of strict scrutiny). Strict scrutiny, then, is
the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to the ban of semiautomatic
rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. See
Friedman, 784 F.3d at 418 (Manion, J., dissenting); cf. Heller
II, 670 F.3d at 1284 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (reading Heller
as departing from traditional scrutiny standards but stating
that “[e]ven if it were appropriate to apply one of the levels
of scrutiny after Heller, surely it would be strict scrutiny
rather than . . . intermediate scrutiny”).

We recognize that other courts have reached different
outcomes when assessing similar bans, but we ultimately find
those decisions unconvincing.

Congrats Maryland!

90 pages....  Cliff notes anyone.  Im still reading it now

Strict scrutiny is fitting for a constitutional right.

So in other words, an appellate court finally got it right and stated the obvious - that the Second Amendment is a real right, not a redheaded step-child right, and therefore strict scrutiny should be applied.

OST

That's usually how it works. Except for guns, because scary. And children.

more info needed

They say strict scrutiny only applies inside your home, but that should be enough to overturn semi-auto bans and magazine ownership restrictions.

+1

Wow OP, thanks for link. Such details...much wow. This thread sucks.

Wall of text....Will not read....

I'm admittedly not familiar with the ban, but congrats Maryland! Now go forth and buy semi-autos!!

FBHO

Whoa, Op. Go easy with the details.

Great news. Hopefully this decision can be used in other states that need a bitch slap (NY)

where the fuck are the links

The 5th circuit could make our lives easier and replace the words "semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds" with "machine guns" in the Hollis case.

Which is bullshit. Just in general, for all fundamental rights. It applies to every fundamental right, everywhere. The government should ALWAYS be put to that burden when a fundamental right is impaired, to show that it has used the most narrow and least restrictive means to achieve some truly compelling interest, allowing for the full exercise of the right.

FIFY



 

SCOTUS will punt or wait until 2060 to hear the case.

That's awesome.

NO FUCKING SHIT!!!!

Yawn. Good for MD and the NRA, but SCOTUS won't pick it up and we'll all go back to shoving our thumbs up our ass.

Please stop, I can only get so erect

I understand if you can't explain it. Legalese can be a pain but if you provide a source most of us can figure it out. Those who can't will be out in front of the NRA HQ protesting.