BREAKING: Fourth Circuit says Maryland "assault weapon" ban may be struck down
Earlier today, a panel of three judges for the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a major decision in a Second Amendment lawsuit out of Maryland that challenges the state's "Firearm Safety Act" ("FSA"), laws that ban semi-automatic "assault weapons" and firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Importantly, the Court's decision in Kolbe v. Hogan held that the Act "implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment" and that "strict scrutiny is the applicable standard of review for Plaintiffs' Second Amendment claim."
To pass strict scrutiny — the most stringent form of judicial review — the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest" and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. It's possible but relatively rare for the government to justify laws that must meet strict scrutiny. READ MORE & THE COURT'S DECISION HERE... http://firearmspolicy.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7b69d67922f8e32ca499bb6b7&id=42908a178e&e=3a647effb9 (http://firearmspolicy.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7b69d67922f8e32ca499bb6b7&id=42908a178e&e=3a647effb9)
If AW wasn't in quotes, I would have thought they killed the NFA.
There are three elements in strict scrutiny: Compelling interest, narrowly tailored, and least restrictive. To expand....
The government clearly has a compelling interest in laws which prevent loss of life of the citizens. It is, in fact, the first duty called out our founding documents.
The first problem is in how the law is tailored. While it is narrow, calling out a specific action type, and then only when combined with magazines over a certain limit. The challenge here is that the tailoring must achieve the goal of the governments interest, that is, save lives. While I might agree that in a narrow scope, say a shooter in a mall, having a semi-automatic gun with a large capacity magazine may be a threat, in the overall statistical scheme of a nation of 300 million, there is no evidence these laws lower the murder rate. In fact, statistically they are unrelated.
Which brings us to item three, which is to accomplish the goal by the least restrictive means possible. And here it utterly fails. Since there is some question about if it achieves the goal at all, there can be no doubt that these laws are not the "least restrictive way". In order even be considered for item two, there would have to be clear statistical evidence that guns bans work in out social structure. There is not any such evidence. Therefore this means of achieving the goal is overly restrictive given that the results are questionable at best.
Hopefully the plantiffs attorney will be skilled at making these points.
Good news, stupid law, its like outlawing sports cars. Makes no sense at all.
The "military" test is ridiculous. The 2nd amendment, even if you think it does not protect self defense, is clearly established to provide a balance of the people to the government and for a militia. It should have been thrown out for that purpose.
MD is hades for lawful gun owners, ahead of only NJ and California.