MD AG: Supreme Court Only OK’ed Handguns for Self-Defense


AR-15 for home defense? (courtesy gunsandammo.com)

“The state of Maryland says gun advocates waited too long to challenge tougher firearm regulations set to take effect Tuesday,” foxnews.com reports, displaying a mysterious preferences for the word “tougher” over the more accurate modifier “unconstitutional.” “Attorney General Doug Gansler asked a federal judge in Baltimore on Monday to deny [a motion] for an order blocking enforcement of the law. Gansler says the plaintiffs sat on their claimed rights for six months after Gov. Martin O’Malley signed the measure . . . Gansler also says the plaintiffs haven’t shown that the challenge is likely to succeed, or that implementation will cause irreparable harm.” In fact, the MD AG’s request [click here for a pdf] argues that the Heller decision “precludes a finding that any other class of firearms has the same status as handguns with respect to home self-defense.” B-b-but Joe Biden recommended a double-barrel shotgun! Watch this space. [h/t DCW]

comments

  1. avatar BDub says:

    That’s both laughable and obstructionist!

  2. avatar great unknown says:

    Looks like they’re going down the same path as Illinois. Obstruct, get slapped down, [waste money they don’t have], repeat ad nauseum. Ah well, if you’re going bankrupt, might as well go all in.

    1. avatar Pete says:

      We’re doing our best not to. However if we can’t turn the tide on SB 281, and sweep O’Malley out of office it’s not gonna happen soon.

  3. avatar BillC says:

    Fvck that guy.

  4. avatar ensitue says:

    USCON&BOR trumps SCOTUS

    1. avatar Rambeast says:

      In an ideal world, this is truth. Now that almost every elected official is a lawyer, it’s becoming painfully clear that they are all out to circumvent the documents designed to constrain them.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      I am not a lawyer, thank goodness, but somewhere along the line it has been decided that the SCOTUS is THE last word on whether or not something is constitutional. I have heard and read that this was apparently never the original intent, but I am not learned enough to pursue that argument. I believe Mark Levine may have addressed this topic in his book “Men in Black”. So long as one group of nine individuals, with only a one vote majority, can twist and spin and strangle the intent of the founding documents to suit their own political prejudices, none of us is safe.

      1. avatar Troutbum5 says:

        They did it in 1803…Marbury vs. Madison. Chief Justice John Jay wrote the majority opinion and gave the court that power. Apparently Jefferson was livid, and for good reason. He thought (correctly) that this would create an oligarchy, since 5 individuals can now effectively trump any law from the Federal level down to the town council. The courts and politicians have been slowly amassing power and taking it from the states and the people.

        1. avatar Steve (CT) says:

          Just a quick correction that it was John Marshall who was Chief Justice at that time. Jay had already retired.

  5. avatar Jay1987 says:

    And just when i thought my day was gonna be good my home state poops in the cheerios thank God we moved to KY all those years ago….

  6. avatar Mark N. says:

    Albeit the argument that Heller only protects handguns is utterly bogus, the rest of the argument against the issuance of a temporary restraining order is well written and quite frankly likely to succeed.

  7. avatar LT says:

    This is why I hightailed it to VA.

    1. avatar jwestham says:

      That’s where I’m hightailing it to. Only I’m leaving NY.

    2. avatar atc_tech says:

      VA (my home state) is next if they can’t do something to defeat Terry McAuliffe’s run for Governor. He has vowed to pass gun control for the state when he is elected.

      I found this on hotair.com and Breitbart.com – From an easily overlooked section of his campaign website:

      “Support common sense gun control measures

      As Governor, Terry will support mainstream and majority supported gun control measures like universal background checks, limiting the size of magazines, and a return to the 1-gun-per-month rule. These measures respect Virginians’ right to bear arms while reducing gun violence.”

      I don’t live in VA anymore (not really by choice, but because of where my job took me) but I do know that seeing another state go the way of MD, NY, CT and CO is not going to be good. From what the obviously biased liberal media says, McAuliffe all but has this gubernatorial election in the bag. Come on Virginians!!! DO SOMETHING!!

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    Heller and McDonald were about handguns, that’s true, and a lot of language in both opinions were about handguns. But SCOTUS did not limit its holding to handguns. What the opinions did was leave the door open to a Democrat or RINO judge to write a weasel opinion, which is what I’m expecting.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      This has been the problem all along. The founding Fathers were very aware of this and discussed at length in the Federalist Papers: Certain factions will ALWAYS want to usurp power and subvert the republic. They tried everything they could think of in writing the Constitution to prevent this, but no matter how carefully you word a law or legal document or contract (“…shall not be infringed.”) there seems to always be a slick lawyer and an agreeable judge who will twist the meaning or find a loophole or somehow weasel out the meaning they want from the meaning that was intended.

      And of course the real problem with SCOTUS is that there is no higher court to appeal to other than to wait years for the makeup of the court to change and hope you can try again and get a different answer.

      Why is it so damned difficult for them to just rule, “The Second Amendment means EXACTLY what it says and you individual states need to back the hell away from all this gun control crap.” It’s not like they need these cases to stay busy, they seem to find plenty of other stuff to interfere with.

    2. avatar SteveInMa says:

      Ralph, hopefully getting My LTC A in MA soon, you looking to part ways with any revolvers or Non-MA compliant guns?

  9. avatar doesky2 says:

    DA Gansler needs to set down the crack pipe.

  10. avatar dwb says:

    welcome to the Maryland primary. extra silliness, hold the iPads for inmates.

  11. avatar Ardent says:

    What about the ‘common use’ doctrine SCOTUS opinioned? I don’t think anyone could legitimately think that the rulings on arms in common use doesn’t apply when talking about HD. As someone said, it’s obstructionist in it’s intentional obtuseness.

    This won’t make it out of the circuit court without being slapped down. Utterly ridiculous.

  12. avatar Jeff says:

    Haha, seriously? Good luck to the MD AG if he wants to prosecute cases involving use of a shotgun in a self-defense role. You know, it’s only one of the most common home defense firearms in the history of… well, firearms.

  13. avatar Toasty says:

    I wrote about this in the forums when i did a write up on the NY AG’s brief dismissing the SAFE Act challenge. The whole argument is exactly as stated here: “Only handguns were ruled as protected and only a COMPLETE ban was ruled unconstitutional, thus, if we ban everything and leave you with A single functional handgun for use of self defense in the home, there is no constitutional question.” This is what they’re going to take to the SCOTUS, they’re going for broke, if the SCOTUS buys this argument there is essentially no 2A. It’s as nonsensical as it is offensive.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      The fact that SCOTUS even bothers to hear cases like this instead of slapping them down as prima facie unconstitutional and sending them back where they came from tells me that even they have bought into the argument that “…shall not be infringed.” does not mean exactly what it says.

    2. avatar Kyle says:

      I couldn’t imagine the SCOTUS buying that argument, as long as the current makeup remains in place.

      1. avatar jwestham says:

        Makes me wonder if one will “slip and fall down the stairs”.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        They’re too cunning to pin themselves down like that.

  14. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    So, what is a weapon suitable for militia purposes? A handgun sure as hell isn’t as a main militia weapon.

    1. avatar Julian says:

      Sidearms are in regular military use, and have been for a long time. It may not the the rifleman’s primary arm, but it is a common backup.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        The primary arm is the M4 / M16. Sounds like a good militia gun to me.

  15. avatar Mediocrates says:

    The people of Maryland deserve this guy. Haven’t I heard that somewhere before?

  16. avatar Jus Bill says:

    “Gansler also says the plaintiffs haven’t shown that the challenge is likely to succeed, or that implementation will cause irreparable harm.”

    Gansler is a gubernatorial wannabe in the upcoming raffle, er, election. Perhaps the People of the Gun could attend his rallies and point out to him that he will have blood on his hands due to his views on “lack of irreparable harm.” And then VOTE against him.

  17. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

    Hey, look at the bright side! They just shot their “2ndA is only for muskets” argumentent in the foot.

  18. avatar tmm says:

    Liberty knows no expiration

  19. avatar Pat says:

    Just use the guns you want to defend your home. And never be stupid enough to vote libtard (democrat) again.

  20. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Guys – sorry to weigh in late, and I am sure Ralph may differ in opinion, but we really should thank this guy for making that argument. This is precisely what is needed to get SCOTUS to weigh in and expand on the “common” usage line from Heller/McDonald cases. Courts rule narrowly. So SCOTUS did leave some wiggle room, but given what Scalia has given speeches about, and the whole 2A is about muskets argument, this case is a perfect example of the state infringing and arguing that it cannot be because SCOTUS ruled one way, when in fact, they did not This is what happened in Illinois with Baby Girl Madigan and she got B!tch slapped so hard, she decided not to run for the governor position Daddy was grooming her for. I am actually happy when antis put silly arguments like this in official court pleadings. They could have easily taken a more moderate approach in defending this, but now, they have guaranteed SCOTUS will hear the case. Just pray no heart attacks on our side in the next 2 yrs.

  21. avatar Jim says:

    Oh for crying out loud. These asshats want to have their cake and eat it too. If anyone had sued before the implementation of the law, they would have been thrown out of court for lack of standing (i.e. you cannot claim to be injured by a law that is not even in place yet). Where did this fool graduate from law school? It is a downright shameful, if not completely frivolous, argument.

  22. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Well, today is the day. Maryland hangs her head in shame.

    And don’t try calling your lawyer while you’re driving in our Formerly Free State – that’s now a primary offense. Unless you’re the po-po, who are immune from the laws of physics it seems.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email