21 states want a court to overturn Maryland’s assault weapons ban

[Midwest]

21 states want a court to overturn Maryland’s post-Sandy Hook assault weapons ban


An unprecedented 21 states want a court to overturn Maryland's assault weapons ban on the basis that the weapons are constitutionally protected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...arylands-post-sandy-hook-assault-weapons-ban/


"In their filing in support of the challengers, the states lay out four arguments, the first of which is that owning the prohibited weapons is constitutionally protected.


The law is being challenged by nine plaintiffs, including individuals, a retailer and gun rights groups.

The 21 states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming."

 

[Sol]

Is there irony in the fact that Maryland isn't one of the states?

 

[Midwest]

Is there irony in the fact that Maryland isn't one of the states?

Yes its and irony that none of the 21 states are going to help New Jersey gun owners.
.

 

[Red Wind]

Yes its and irony that none of the 21 states are going to help New Jersey gun owners.

It is ironic, and my New Jersey relatives, almost all of whom are gun owners, feel they'll be abandoned until they die.

As children, my cousins and I, roamed our dads and uncles farms and fields freely, knocking off groundhogs and plinking at soda cans with 22LR's, with no worries or cares.

What has happened since 1955 in New Jersey is shocking and most depressing.

 

[AlexanderA]

It's important to note that the 21 states are not parties to the suit. (They don't have "standing.") What they're doing is filing a joint amicus brief. An amicus brief is only as good as the persuasiveness of its arguments, in "lobbying" the judges.

“The weapons banned by the Maryland law fall within the protection of the Second Amendment because they are typically possessed for lawful purposes, including the core protected purpose of self-defense,” they argue.

They're trying to latch onto Justice Scalia's reasoning in the Heller case, saying that the prohibited weapons are "in common use" for "self-defense inside the home." This is a weak argument. There are other weapons, such as typical handguns, that are in more common use and are more suitable for self-defense.

The strongest 2nd Amendment argument, in this case, would be that the prohibited weapons are precisely those that would best fulfill the "militia" purpose of the Amendment. (Using the reasoning of the 1939 case Miller v. U.S.) However, that's the weakness of the Heller case as precedent: Scalia seemingly disregarded the militia clause of the Amendment entirely (as "prefatory" language having no "operative" effect), and he went out of his way to say that "reasonable restrictions" could apply to things like machine guns.

For the time being, lawyers are forced to argue 2nd Amendment cases within the parameters of Scalia's reasoning in Heller. We should all be aware that the vaunted Heller case threw machine gun (and other NFA) owners, as well as so-called "assault weapon" owners, under the bus -- and that that was intentional, since attorney Alan Gura's strategy was to limit the scope of the case in order to get a favorable decision.

The analogy of the Heller case to the 1986 FOPA law is striking. Both times, the "powers that be" (the NRA in 1986, and Gura/Scalia in Heller) thought that the "greater good" for gun owners required sacrificing some of them. As gun owners, we should never, ever allow ourselves to be "divided and conquered."