Fderal Appeals Court Orders Lower Court to Reconsider MD AWB

[30 cal slut]

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/appeals-court-orders-judge-to-reconsider-md-gun-law-ruling/37818304




RICHMOND, Va. —A federal appeals court has ordered a judge to reconsider her decision upholding Maryland's assault weapons ban.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that the law implicates the Second Amendment's core protection of citizens' right to use firearms to defend their homes.

Maryland lawmakers passed the sweeping Firearms Safety Act after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. Gun-rights advocates challenged the provision banning 45 assault weapons, and the 10-round limit on gun magazines.

The appeals court ruled that U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake applied the wrong judicial standard when she upheld the provision. The court sent the case back and told Blake to apply a higher standard of review that essentially makes it harder to prove the law passes constitutional muster.



ETA

here is the press release from the NSSF on the matter.




To: ALL MEDIA

For immediate release

February 4, 2016
For more information contact:

Mike Bazinet
203-426-1320

Appeals Court Remands Decision for 'Strict Scrutiny' of Second Amendment

NEWTOWN, Conn. - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today overturned a federal district court decision that had upheld the 2013 State of Maryland Firearm Safety Act as constitutional under intermediate scrutiny review.

Writing for the three-judge appellate court panel that heard the case, Kolbe v. Maryland, Chief Judge William B. Traxler wrote: "In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment - 'the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570,635 (2008), and we are compelled by Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), as well as our own precedent in the wake of these decisions to conclude that the burden is substantial and strict scrutiny is the applicable standard or review for Plaintiffs' Second Amendment claim."

The court vacated the district court's denial of the plaintiffs' claims and remanded the case to the lower court, ordering that it apply the appropriate strict standard of review.

"We are greatly heartened by the Fourth Circuit panel's ruling today," said Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), one of the lead plaintiffs in this case. "As this important case goes forward, NSSF will continue to work with our co-plaintiffs to ensure that our citizens' Second Amendment rights are protected and that the lawful commerce in firearms is restored in support of this constitutional protection."

[Straight Shooter]

Well now...that's freakin AWESOME. Thanks for that info, sir.

[soulezoo]

When can that migrate to CA????

[Clem]

When can that migrate to CA????

Or NJ

[30 cal slut]

Guys, I am in CT. Believe me, I'm waiting too.

I'm sure my neighbors in NY state are on the same page.

[platoonDaddy]

Impallaria, has a few bullets

From: Delegate Rick Impallaria <Rick.Impallaria@house.state.md.us>
Date: 02/04/2016 16:40 (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Federal Court Upholds Second Amendment



Fourth District U. S. Court of Appeals Affirms Second Amendment Rights

Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in the Kolbe v. Hogan case (formerly Kolbe v. O’Malley), which challenges the Firearm Safety Act (FSA) (SB 281, passed by the O'Malley administration in 2013).

This opinion is a big win for supporters of the Second Amendment.

This highlight list was put together by Del. Wilson and the staff of the House GOP Caucus.

US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
Opinion on Kolbe v. Hogan
Firearms Safety Act (SB281) Challenge

Action: Court vacated the district court’s denial of the Plaintiff’s Second Amendment claims and sent the case back to the district court to apply strict scrutiny.

Court found that FSA does substantially infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.
The court acknowledged the 2nd Amendment Right to individual self-defense.
The court recognized an individual’s right to self-defense in the home.
The court acknowledged that AR15’s (and similar rifles) and 10+ round clips are commonly possessed weapons.
Rejected the state’s argument that magazines are not covered by the 2nd Amendment
Stated that Maryland is trying to circumvent the law by prohibiting independent components.
Rejected the state’s “dangerous” argument.
Found the ban on magazines and rifles substantially burdens the fundamental rights of citizens.
Cited legitimate and lawful reasons for citizens to prefer semi-automatic rifles.
Found the law substantially burdens the right to arm oneself at home.

Notable Quotes from the opinion:

“First, the FSA’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and larger-capacity magazines burdens the availability and use of a class of arms for self-defense in the home, where the protection afforded by the Second Amendment is at its greatest.”

“Second, we conclude that the challenged provisions of the FSA substantially burden this fundamental right. The burden imposed in this case is not merely incidental. Maryland law imposes a complete ban on the possession by law-abiding citizens of AR-15 style rifles—the most popular class of centerfire semi-automatic rifles in the United States. As we explained in Section III.A., these weapons are protected under the Second Amendment.”

“We therefore struggle to see how Maryland’s law would not substantially burden the core Second Amendment right to defend oneself and one’s family in the home with a firearm that is commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for such lawful purposes.”

“Moreover, the FSA also reaches every instance where an AR-15 platform semi-automatic rifle or LCM might be preferable to handguns or bolt-action rifles--for example hunting, recreational shooting, or competitive marksmanship events, all of which are lawful purposes protected by the Constitution.”

“As Judge Kavanaugh noted in dissent in Heller II, prohibiting this group of weapons might be ‘equivalent to a ban on a category of speech’.”

“Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, the fact that handguns, bolt-action and other manually-loaded long guns, and, as noted earlier, a few semi-automatic rifles are still available for self-defense does not mitigate this burden.”

[Alex V]

Or NJ

Amen.

We are in a different circuit tho. Wonder how we can make it translate.

[Big A]

Amen.

We are in a different circuit tho. Wonder how we can make it translate.
You guys have to challenge it in court using the verdict of this (if it ends in a win for team freedom)case as case law to prove that bans are an infringement on the 2A.

[titsonritz]

The entire decision can be found here. (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Kolbe-v.-Hogan_Opinion.pdf)

Federal Court requires ‘strict scrutiny’ in Maryland AWB challenge (http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-court-requires-strict-scrutiny-maryland-awb-challenge)

Good news for sure.

[gunrunner505]

If this goes the right was hopefully it can be used to vacate any rifle bans hastily put in place in Illinois before the carry law took effect. It's only about 10 towns but still.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WillBrink]

No doubt the media will ignore this ruling:

Federal Court Rules There is a ‘Fundamental Right’ to AR-15’s

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has ruled that Americans have a “fundamental right” to so-called assault weapons, a major victory for gun rights.

A three judge panel ruled that Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013, ban against what the court called “the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens”, is a blunt violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

“In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment — the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” Chief Judge William Traxler wrote in the divided ruling.

In his ruling, Judge Traxler sent the case back to the District Court for review, demanding they apply “strict scrutiny” – a stringent constitutional test that almost no gun control legislation can survive.

“This case was a major victory for the NRA and gun rights advocates,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA who specializes in Second Amendment law. “This opinion is an important one because it subjects important gun control laws to the most strict form of judicial scrutiny.”

While the Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on these cases, Justice Clarence Thomas has complained that the Second Amendment was being relegated to “a second-class right.”

“If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing,” he wrote, and added that those earlier decisions enshrining the right to gun ownership shouldn’t be expected to “clarify the entire field.”

Source:

Read more: http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/breaking-federal-court-rules-there-is-a-fundamental-right-to-ar-15s/#ixzz3zJ5BvQ29

Full Court Ruling:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2704151/Court-opinion-on-Maryland-assault-weapons.pdf

[MountainRaven]

Further down this page:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?180008-Fderal-Appeals-Court-Orders-Lower-Court-to-Reconsider-MD-AWB

:)

[nova3930]

Got it right for once. If I'm not mistaken it's now a fo real circuit split so SCOTUS might take it up when it gets to that point....

[Korgs130]

If this goes the right was hopefully it can be used to vacate any rifle bans hastily put in place in Illinois before the carry law took effect. It's only about 10 towns but still.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. It is indeed good news and hopefully those communities in IL and elsewhere will actual be able to enjoy their civil rights for a change.

[nova3930]

I think this makes for a definite circuit split if I'm not mistaken. Gonna put a lot more pressure on SCOTUS to take it up if it gets that far....

[7.62NATO]

America is turning left. If it goes to SCOTUS, it will be ruled that the 2A does not protect black rifles. Simple as that.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

America is turning left. If it goes to SCOTUS, it will be ruled that the 2A does not protect black rifles. Simple as that.

If we get another Dem in the Whitehouse, we'll loose SCOTUS and they will reign holy hell on gun owners. Heller and McDonald will mean nothing if the Scalia test of reasonable restrictions are picked up by the Progressive Court. Replace any one of our four and it is over as Roberts will let us blow in the wind in the name of clearer majorities. CCW, AWB, stadard cap mags, protection for gun sellers and manufacturers will be out. Waiting times, a note from your doctor, insurance requirements, ammo taxes, 50 round home storage limit (who needs more than that to hunt), finger tip guns that won't work-- all that is what we will get if people get snotty any think that who ever the GOP puts out there isn't 'pure' enough.

[Koshinn]

Got it right for once. If I'm not mistaken it's now a fo real circuit split so SCOTUS might take it up when it gets to that point....

Not that I don't believe you, but which circuits have ruled AWBs constitutional?

[TMS951]

Hmm,

and how does this mesh with NYsafe act and what they call the gun grabbing in CT? I thought those made it through appeals courts and were not shut down?

[ABNAK]

If we get another Dem in the Whitehouse, we'll loose SCOTUS and they will reign holy hell on gun owners. Heller and McDonald will mean nothing if the Scalia test of reasonable restrictions are picked up by the Progressive Court. Replace any one of our four and it is over as Roberts will let us blow in the wind in the name of clearer majorities. CCW, AWB, stadard cap mags, protection for gun sellers and manufacturers will be out. Waiting times, a note from your doctor, insurance requirements, ammo taxes, 50 round home storage limit (who needs more than that to hunt), finger tip guns that won't work-- all that is what we will get if people get snotty any think that who ever the GOP puts out there isn't 'pure' enough.

So maybe, just maybe, the GOP ought to be careful who they nominate? Just a thought. :meeting:

[soulezoo]

Hmm,

and how does this mesh with NYsafe act and what they call the gun grabbing in CT? I thought those made it through appeals courts and were not shut down?

They did and that is what nova above was referring to on the split of decisions. Now, the SCOTUS has impetus to take a case and rule.

[RIDE]

They did and that is what nova above was referring to on the split of decisions. Now, the SCOTUS has impetus to take a case and rule.

Which, currently, isn't necessarily a good thing IMO

[soulezoo]

Which, currently, isn't necessarily a good thing IMO

No, I didn't say that... however, if a Dem gets in and appoints new people, it will definitely not be a good thing.

[nova3930]

Not that I don't believe you, but which circuits have ruled AWBs constitutional?

The 7th. Friedman v. City of Highland Park. SCOTUS denied cert.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

So maybe, just maybe, the GOP ought to be careful who they nominate? Just a thought. :meeting:

You get who you get. If 'Liberterians' want to sit this out, loose the 2a- along with everything else so they can say 'I told you so', they go to the top of the list when all this goes sideways.

[JS-Maine]

I agree with how you started off, but you and I differ on who will actually be able to win the whitehouse. I believe history is an excellent indicator of who actually can win against Hillary or Sanders. Any old R won't pass muster. The middle ground, deal making, moderate types scuttle the ship every time, decade after decade. So yeah, the GOP should be careful who they nominate.


If we get another Dem in the Whitehouse, we'll loose SCOTUS and they will reign holy hell on gun owners....

all that is what we will get if people get snotty any think that who ever the GOP puts out there isn't 'pure' enough.

[platoonDaddy]

So maybe, just maybe, the GOP ought to be careful who they nominate? Just a thought. :meeting:

Remember is We The People through the primary process select one candidate.


Forgot to add: MD AG has stated he will appeal the ruling.

[Koshinn]

The 7th. Friedman v. City of Highland Park. SCOTUS denied cert.

The 9th hasnt?

[ABNAK]

You get who you get. If 'Liberterians' want to sit this out, loose the 2a- along with everything else so they can say 'I told you so', they go to the top of the list when all this goes sideways.

Not to derail the thread but I think it's the true conservatives who will sit it out if a RINO gets the nomination AGAIN, not the Libertarians.

[Dave_M]

You get who you get. If 'Liberterians' want to sit this out, loose the 2a- along with everything else so they can say 'I told you so', they go to the top of the list when all this goes sideways.

You're assuming the Libertarian vote only comes from former Republicans. Many of them do, but I know plenty of Libertarians that end up voting 'D' come presidential election time because they believe that party more closely aligns with their primary concerns (often marriage rights and other social issues, combined with a presumably less war-ish foreign policy).

This is terribly surprising when you consider most people are two issue voters, max.

[Eurodriver]

You're assuming the Libertarian vote only comes from former Republicans. Many of them do, but I know plenty of Libertarians that end up voting 'D' come presidential election time because they believe that party more closely aligns with their primary concerns (often marriage rights and other social issues, combined with a presumably less war-ish foreign policy).

This is terribly surprising when you consider most people are two issue voters, max.

Bingo.

Republicans do not have a monopoly on the Libertarian vote.

I'd rather vote D than vote for Christie.

[Big A]

I'd rather vote D than vote for Christie.

What's the difference?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The D's do a good job of backing who ever gets their nomination. Was Kerry the left's dream candidate? No way- but that ass hat almost won.

They get behind their guy and then the next election and primary they push further left. They know that having any Rep - even a RINO- will hurt their cause.

People on the right think that they can 'punish' the party and that they will change. The Dems take what they can get and keep pushing incrementally.

Guess who is winning?

The Right only wants to throw Hail Mary passes because anything else is tainted. Hell, they'd throw a Hail Mary on 4th down from their own 20 instead of punting. Sometimes they don't come back to the field after halftime and lose the game by default. The left just keeps moving the football, takes the ground they can. Takes field goals. Punts when they have to. They win.

Go ahead, throw Hail Mary's and tantrums. It ain't working.

[JS-Maine]

Curious what Hail Marys you are referencing that have failed recently? Maybe I'm way off, but I don't consider Dole, McCain and Romney Hail Marys. The reality is that the leftists are winning because the RINOs either roll over or play right along like good little lemmings. They don't hurt their cause at all. In fact, they help their cause. End the RINOs, end the losing.


The D's do a good job of backing who ever gets their nomination...They get behind their guy and then the next election and primary they push further left. They know that having any Rep - even a RINO- will hurt their cause....Go ahead, throw Hail Mary's and tantrums. It ain't working.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The Hail Mary's are more the legislation and backing it. The Progressives take what they can get and come back the next day. They know this is a never ending battle. People in the right seem to think that we can get some huge win and the whole thing will be won. Everyone will see that right side policies are correct and you can cue the theme song and roll the credits.

You don't go from JFK to Bernie Sanders in one move. It takes 50 years of slow pushing.

You vote for the RINOs and then caucus them out the next time. How people don't understand that is a failure to understand how politics works. You don't win by losing elections. As this thread shows, if you lose SCOTUS, if you lose the federal benchs because your guys, or guys closer to you, don't nominate people- you lose.

This all or nothing I think comes from a crash mentality that we'll all get this fixed in the Armageddon.

McCain and Romney are the 3 yard gains. Would we have been better off with Romney than BHOs executive fiat-ocracy? McCain is bat crap crazy, but we wouldn't have Obamacare.

[BoringGuy45]

The D's do a good job of backing who ever gets their nomination. Was Kerry the left's dream candidate? No way- but that ass hat almost won.

They get behind their guy and then the next election and primary they push further left. They know that having any Rep - even a RINO- will hurt their cause.

People on the right think that they can 'punish' the party and that they will change. The Dems take what they can get and keep pushing incrementally.

Guess who is winning?

The Right only wants to throw Hail Mary passes because anything else is tainted. Hell, they'd throw a Hail Mary on 4th down from their own 20 instead of punting. Sometimes they don't come back to the field after halftime and lose the game by default. The left just keeps moving the football, takes the ground they can. Takes field goals. Punts when they have to. They win.

Go ahead, throw Hail Mary's and tantrums. It ain't working.

THANK YOU! I've been saying this exact thing for a long time, and nobody listens. The Right seems to have it in their heads that unless we turn this country back to the way it was before the Andrew Jackson administration, we are traitors to the Constitution.


Curious what Hail Marys you are referencing that have failed recently? Maybe I'm way off, but I don't consider Dole, McCain and Romney Hail Marys. The reality is that the leftists are winning because the RINOs either roll over or play right along like good little lemmings. They don't hurt their cause at all. In fact, they help their cause. End the RINOs, end the losing.

Those aren't the Hail Marys. Yes, RINOs are part of the problem, but so is the fact that us on the Right keep defining RINO "Anyone not named Ron or Rand Paul." They're sitting out elections unless the perfect candidate gets the nod. God, how many people on this board alone said last year they weren't going to vote because everyone, including Rand Paul, were not worth voting for?

It's the same reason we can't get anything pro-gun moving. We could have a bill backing universal carry and a repeal of the Sporter clause, and groups like the GOA would STILL not back it because it still leaves other laws on the books and "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand, dammit??"

Like what FromMyColdDeadHand said, we need to be like the Left: Take what we can get and fight on till the next day. This country started really getting bad when Obama got elected. Starting in 2013 (from what I noticed) the left started to COMPLETE lose its mind. We have opportunities, as the moderates are as fed up with the PC police and radical social justice bullshit as we are. But we're not going to win by being the extreme opposite. We need to take baby steps.

[Big A]

And how has voting R because R worked out for us?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

How has not voting R because they weren't the second coming of Ronald Reagan worked for us?

Obamacare
Global Warming cash grab
BLM running the DOJ
Coal Killed
Reset-ski with Russia

It ain't about how well you like the twit that is on the ballot this time. It is keeping their guys out of office, since the courts are becoming the most powerful parts of the govt.

[austinN4]

It ain't about how well you like the twit that is on the ballot this time. It is keeping their guys out of office, since the courts are becoming the most powerful parts of the govt.

Describes perfectly where I am at this election cycle.

[Big A]

How has not voting R because they weren't the second coming of Ronald Reagan worked for us?

Obamacare
Global Warming cash grab
BLM running the DOJ
Coal Killed
Reset-ski with Russia

It ain't about how well you like the twit that is on the ballot this time. It is keeping their guys out of office, since the courts are becoming the most powerful parts of the govt.

I've voted straight R in every election since 1998.

Obamacare was held up by a SCOTUS with an R appointee chief judge and 5/9 R appointee majority.

The destabilization of the M.E. was begun by an R president.

R's got the House in 2012 and the Senate in 2014 and what have they done exactly? Oh that's right, they passed Obama's Omnibus spending bill.

Fast & Furious?

The IRS?

The VA?

What have they done to fix anything exactly?

Yet in November we get the privilege of punching a ticket for some asshat with an R by his name in the oft chance of preventing either Thundercunt or Bernie Marx from getting the highest office in the world. Yay us!

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I've voted straight R in every election since 1998.

Obamacare was held up by a SCOTUS with an R appointee chief judge and 5/9 R appointee majority.

The destabilization of the M.E. was begun by an R president. The middle east has been a shit hole since The Garden of Eden

R's got the House in 2012 and the Senate in 2014 and what have they done exactly? Oh that's right, they passed Obama's Omnibus spending bill. Once again Hail Mary strategy of repeal of nothing.

Fast & Furious?

The IRS? That there is an IRS or that there was the TEA party prosecution? Or that nothing came out of that investigation? Do you think the investigation would have gone the same way if ROmeny were in?

The VA? The VA is govt run healthcare and is a complete **** up. You expect a R congress to fix what is basically communism in a hospital?

What have they done to fix anything exactly?

Yet in November we get the privilege of punching a ticket for some asshat with an R by his name in the oft chance of preventing either Thundercunt or Bernie Marx from getting the highest office in the world. Yay us!

There you go. The Hail Mary strategy. Trump is leading in the polls and the Bush is about to get pruned and everyone seems to think nothing has changed. Instead, everyone goes after Rubio because he isn't pure enough and as soon as Rand is out is crazy dad goes into crazy uncle mode.

It's a shit sandwhich, by design. You just try to get the best shit-to-mayonnaise ratio that you can. The establishment is counting on you to throw up your hands and just go away.

[JS-Maine]

We are definitely speaking on two differing subjects. One being the Republican nomination and the other being legislative strategy, though the two do overlap on occasion. As in most cases where principles are compromised, such as taking whatever we can get, it really only serves to produce cracks in the armor. It is to be expected the other side will take advantage. For example:


You vote for the RINOs and then caucus them out the next time. How people don't understand that is a failure to understand how politics works. You don't win by losing elections.

McCain and Romney are the 3 yard gains. Would we have been better off with Romney than BHOs executive fiat-ocracy? McCain is bat crap crazy, but we wouldn't have Obamacare.

"You don't win by losing elections"...what exactly do you think McCain and Romney did? Your proving my point here. We went for the 3 yard gain with Romney, but instead we were sacked and it was a tremendous loss. A saftey in fact...on FIVE possessions. Let's nickname those possessions...Ford, HW Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney. To address the first subject: the republican nominee- electing RINOs for the republican nomination has historically brought about a loss: undeniable fact.


Like what FromMyColdDeadHand said, we need to be like the Left: Take what we can get and fight on till the next day. This country started really getting bad when Obama got elected....

You mean when we fell for the "electability trap" for the fifth time? To address the second concept of legislative strategy- I'm not sure if your saying we should vote for RINOs or just promote their legislation. Either way, voting for them is what brought us Boehner, McCain, Ryan, and McConnell. So we managed to stack our leadership with "moderates" that proceed to stonewall any conservative legislation. So, good luck with the latter (promoting conservative legislation) while voting for the very RINOs who shut it down.

When we compromise our principles, aka play the take-what-we-can-get game, we expose huge weaknesses in our strategy. We lose not because of "Hail Marys" but because people are convinced by the party bosses to embrace their beneficial strategy which is in fact ushering in our own defeat. If you haven't noticed, this is their game in general: Convince the masses on a proposed solution which will only propagate the problem. See socialized medicine, gun control, etc.

[Dist. Expert 26]

At this point in the game voting R is only about 5% better than voting D. The leadership of both parties are deeply corrupt individuals concerned only with furthering their personal interests and the interests of people who contribute to their campaigns. Any legislation that will make a dent in the establishment, i.e. restore freedom, has little to no chance of getting off the ground, all the while the overlords stuff hundreds of riders onto bills they never even read. Yet not one of those riders has any benefit for we the people.

Sure, vote R this fall. Maybe, just maybe, if the right candidate gets the nomination we can slow the train down a little bit. But no matter what happens there is exactly 0 chance of the train stopping and going in reverse. .

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Compound 5% every election. That is how you get from JFK to Bernie Sanders. That is how you get from Good Ole Boy Bill to Closet Commie Hillary. The FSA turns up everytime. The We-Pay-For-Crap-Army is fickle.

[brickboy240]

I know it SEEMS like voting R is only 5% better but 4-8 year of Hillary and there WILL be no returning to anything that resembles normal...ever.

An "R" victory might not turn it around but we stand a ghost of a chance of slowing it down.

Hillary wins...forget it. We can kill it at every mid-term election and it won't mean a damn thing.

This is truly the tipping point.

[BBossman]

I know it SEEMS like voting R is only 5% better but 4-8 year of Hillary and there WILL be no returning to anything that resembles normal...ever.

An "R" victory might not turn it around but we stand a ghost of a chance of slowing it down.

Hillary wins...forget it. We can kill it at every mid-term election and it won't mean a damn thing.

This is truly the tipping point.

But... but... the repubicans hold the house and senate, surely they can stop Hillary's communist agenda as effectively as they promised they'd hold off The Manchurian Candidate once they got control of both houses.

Its now a one party government with two wings disagreeing on how to spend money we haven't earned yet.

[ABNAK]

I know it SEEMS like voting R is only 5% better but 4-8 year of Hillary and there WILL be no returning to anything that resembles normal...ever.

An "R" victory might not turn it around but we stand a ghost of a chance of slowing it down.

Hillary wins...forget it. We can kill it at every mid-term election and it won't mean a damn thing.

This is truly the tipping point.

Where have I heard that before? Oh, wait....it was in 2008 and 2012.

Don't give me a RINO to vote for and I'll vote "R". To me that's Cruz (preferably) or ass-f**k Trump, who although I don't like him he is NOT an Establishment Republican.

[Big A]

There you go. The Hail Mary strategy. Trump is leading in the polls and the Bush is about to get pruned and everyone seems to think nothing has changed. Instead, everyone goes after Rubio because he isn't pure enough and as soon as Rand is out is crazy dad goes into crazy uncle mode.

It's a shit sandwhich, by design. You just try to get the best shit-to-mayonnaise ratio that you can. The establishment is counting on you to throw up your hands and just go away.
The M.E. was a shit hole with consistent bowl movements, now it has chronic dysentery and IBS (or is it ISIS? I forget).

Nobody was held responsible for the IRS being used as a weapon against opponents of the DNC.

Nobody was held responsible for Fast & Furious.

And the VA simply needs to be an agency that pays the claims, not it's own separate hospital system. Veterans should be able to go to any doctor of their choosing not a special hospital that may be hours away from where they live.

Anyway we've taken this thread off topic so let's leave these discussions for the GOP thread.

[Bulletdog]

I've voted straight R in every election since 1998.

Obamacare was held up by a SCOTUS with an R appointee chief judge and 5/9 R appointee majority.

The destabilization of the M.E. was begun by an R president.

R's got the House in 2012 and the Senate in 2014 and what have they done exactly? Oh that's right, they passed Obama's Omnibus spending bill.

Fast & Furious?

The IRS?

The VA?

What have they done to fix anything exactly?

Yet in November we get the privilege of punching a ticket for some asshat with an R by his name in the oft chance of preventing either Thundercunt or Bernie Marx from getting the highest office in the world. Yay us!

Me too. You are correct on every complaint above and I agree wholeheartedly. It sucks.

So what's the solution? Help another socialist get into office by not voting at all? The Dems are all going to come out and vote regardless of which commie gets the nod. Can we say the same?

Personally, I don't care which A-hole politician gets the nod for the R side. Whoever it is will get my vote in an attempt to slow, if not stop, this socialist freight train and the impending doom that is on it. I'm not in love with any of the R candidates, but ANY of them are better than ANY D. Further, not voting for whoever the Rs put forward essentially guarantees more of what we've had going on for the last 8 years.

I'm begging for you, and any other gun owning, tax paying American to vote on election day. Not doing so only moves us one step closer to the end of our story.

[Bulletdog]

Where have I heard that before? Oh, wait....it was in 2008 and 2012.

Don't give me a RINO to vote for and I'll vote "R". To me that's Cruz (preferably) or ass-f**k Trump, who although I don't like him he is NOT an Establishment Republican.

You'd rather have Sanders or Billary than any of the other Republicans? Really? Who are you helping by not voting?

... not a rhetorical question.

[Bulletdog]

But... but... the repubicans hold the house and senate, surely they can stop Hillary's communist agenda as effectively as they promised they'd hold off The Manchurian Candidate once they got control of both houses.

Its now a one party government with two wings disagreeing on how to spend money we haven't earned yet.


You are right. So what should we do?

[ABNAK]

You'd rather have Sanders or Billary than any of the other Republicans? Really? Who are you helping by not voting?

... not a rhetorical question.

I listed the two front-runners. If that's not good enough then I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe the question should be turned around: is having Bernie or the Twat worth nominating a RINO?

[BBossman]

You are right. So what should we do?

There is no answer. We have a political system built on cash, fear mongering and punishment.

"Give me your money or else the other guy will be elected and destroy America, but if you elect me I will punish them..." - Both Party Candidates

[THCDDM4]

You are right. So what should we do?

The answer to this is rather simple- we were given instructions in the Constitution.

Acting on it- now that's a whole lot harder.

[BBossman]

The answer to this is rather simple- we were given instructions in the Constitution.

Acting on it- now that's a whole lot harder.

Sounds like extremist talk to me.

[THCDDM4]

Sounds like extremist talk to me.

All things are relative.

I think letting it all go to shit and allowing liberty and what's right to die off is the worst extreme there is.
YMMV

[7.62NATO]

Great article on the court decision. The author nails it, and is one of the good guys.

http://www.ammoland.com/2016/02/strict-scrutiny-decision-on-maryland-semi-autos-still-leaves-dangerous-common-use/#axzz405RDdxF0