Federal court upholds Maryland so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" and 10-rd mag limit

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Didn't SCOTUS refuse to take up a similar ban and Thomas and Scalia dissented? Don't be so sure that a supposed 5/4 court (which existed with Scalia) will jump to this. It might be a BIG mistake to go to SCOTUS for the NRA, if it isn't taken up or the decision gets hung up on some 'reasonable' restrictions or state rights grounds to determine such.

Folks thought Heller and McD would usher in a golden age - but we've seen increasing and supported state bans in antigun or mixed gun view states. Unintended consequences - they bite you in the ass.

From what I read, the courts operate like this - lots of legal precedents and blather - however, the judges have a political view on such issues and then look for precedents and logic to support their political viewpoint.

[ssb]

Didn't SCOTUS refuse to take up a similar ban and Thomas and Scalia dissented? Don't be so sure that a supposed 5/4 court (which existed with Scalia) will jump to this. It might be a BIG mistake to go to SCOTUS for the NRA, if it isn't taken up or the decision gets hung up on some 'reasonable' restrictions or state rights grounds to determine such.

Folks thought Heller and McD would usher in a golden age - but we've seen increasing and supported state bans in antigun or mixed gun view states. Unintended consequences - they bite you in the ass.

From what I read, the courts operate like this - lots of legal precedents and blather - however, the judges have a political view on such issues and then look for precedents and logic to support their political viewpoint.

a) we don't know the reasons for not taking the past cases. While there are some predictors, the Court hasn't really been the greatest at articulating why one case makes it while hundreds of others do not.
b) the absolute worst-case scenario would be to revisit or "clarify" Heller in a way which severely limits the protections recognized under that decision. That would require at least one of the Heller majority to decide that, hey, I got it wrong last time.
c) the realistic worst case scenario is the Court deciding that normal mags and scary rifles fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment, and perhaps applies intermediate scrutiny to 2A issues. If that happens, we stay at the status quo: anti states gonna anti, pro states gonna pro, constant watchdogging of Congress and the Executive -- just as we've been doing.
d) the best case scenario is the Court adds some teeth -- preferably in the form of strict scrutiny -- to Heller. That would seal the fate of much of the state-level anti stupidity and represent a massive win.

If a court with Gorsuch on it doesn't continue to duck the issue, I think b) is an unlikely scenario. I'd say even money between c) and d). To my mind, we stand to lose very little by having them decide it -- we're already at intermediate scrutiny from most of the appellate courts anyway and anti-AWB/pro-CCW suits simply aren't winning under that level of scrutiny.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Never mind that it directly contravenes the 1939 Miller case:

Stop.

Miller is dead letter. It no longer applies unless you want to go back to a collective rights theory...

And you Do NOT...

[modrecoil]

National Review has a couple of good articles about it. One of them:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-constitution

[Jeep]

Stop.

Miller is dead letter. It no longer applies unless you want to go back to a collective rights theory...

And you Do NOT...

I don't know. Miller is a very confused case (with even more bizarre procedure behind it) but I do not read it to say that there is no individual right to bear arms. It was later cited as a collective rights case, but I don't think that reading is necessary.