I’m skeptical
Supreme Court likely to hear new assault weapons ban case
May be on to something. But the MD court didn’t really rule that way. They ruled on scrutiny. I can see a subsequent BS application of strict scrutiny causing that to happen, though.
February 8th, 2016 at 7:45 pm
It looks like the MD Attorney General wants an Enblanc hearing or Scotus to pick it up. Which means he doesn’t think the court the 4th kicked it down too would be able to get away with Strict Scrutiny.
Otherwise why would the MD Attorney General object to a decision that is “apply strict scrutiny” and not “overturn this law”?
February 8th, 2016 at 7:48 pm
No, I think they did rule that way. Once they got to strict scrutiny, then they are 99% of the way there anyways. Strict scrutiny means, “you have to not only have a damned good reason to restrict this right, but this has to be the least restrictive way to meet that damned good reason.”
So, once strict scrutiny is required, then it’s the same as the 1st amendment. You have to have a clear, specific danger (not a general, “crime is bad” danger, but a particular person in a particular circumstance) and the remedy has to be least restrictive way to deal with that need. Any of the bans they are talking about are essentially prior restraint, and once you are into strict scrutiny, they are as illegal for the 2nd amendment as they are for the 1st.
February 8th, 2016 at 8:32 pm
The Maryland AG is arguing that Intermediate Scrutiny should be the standard (which is what the trial court ruled). If the chief of the circuit agrees to an en banc hearing, he gets another chance at the Circuit level otherwise its the Supreme Court or start over.
February 9th, 2016 at 10:50 am
The Supremes won’t do another 2A case for a while. John Roberts hates looking bad in the NYTimes.