{"id":1096,"date":"2016-02-05T13:14:00","date_gmt":"2016-02-05T13:14:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/2016\/02\/05\/a-win-in-4th-circui\/"},"modified":"2019-08-16T18:26:22","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T18:26:22","slug":"a-win-in-4th-circui","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/?p=1096","title":{"rendered":"A Win In The 4th Circuit (Updated)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class='__iawmlf-post-loop-links' style='display:none;' data-iawmlf-post-links='[{&quot;id&quot;:7999,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\\\/2014\\\/08\\\/the-most-common-rifle-in-america-not.html&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/web-wp.archive.org\\\/web\\\/20250914031151\\\/https:\\\/\\\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\\\/2014\\\/08\\\/the-most-common-rifle-in-america-not.html&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-18 02:32:06&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:200},{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-25 01:22:13&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:200}],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-25 01:22:13&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:200},&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:9748,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/michellawyers.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2013\\\/10\\\/Kolbe-v.-Hogan_Opinion.pdf&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/michellawyers.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2013\\\/10\\\/Kolbe-v.-Hogan_Opinion.pdf&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:9749,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/www.pagunblog.com\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/04\\\/breaking-major-win-in-4th-circuit-over-maryland-assault-weapons-ban&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/www.pagunblog.com\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/04\\\/breaking-major-win-in-4th-circuit-over-maryland-assault-weapons-ban&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:9750,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/legalinsurrection.com\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/big-2a-win-4th-circuit-applies-strict-scrutiny-to-maryland-gun-control-law\\\/#more-159934&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/legalinsurrection.com\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/big-2a-win-4th-circuit-applies-strict-scrutiny-to-maryland-gun-control-law\\\/&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:9751,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/www.washingtonpost.com\\\/news\\\/volokh-conspiracy\\\/wp\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/04\\\/kolbe-v-hogan-4th-circuit-requires-strict-scrutiny-for-maryland-ban-on-magazines-and-semiautomatics&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:9752,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/armsandthelaw.com\\\/archives\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/great_fourth_ci.php&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/armsandthelaw.com\\\/archives\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/great_fourth_ci.php&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;}]'><\/div>\n<p>\nThe 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has not been too good for gun rights in the past few years. However, a case involving Maryland make signal a change. <i>Kolbe v. Hogan<\/i> (formerly <i>Kolbe v. O&#8217;Malley<\/i>) challenged Maryland&#8217;s ban on certain semi-auto firearms and standard capacity on Second Amendment and Equal Protection Clause grounds. <a href=\"http:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\/2014\/08\/the-most-common-rifle-in-america-not.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The District Court for Maryland agreed with the state&#8217;s arguments and found the bans were constitutional using intermediate scrutiny<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Today, the 4th Circuit overturned that decision in part and remanded it back to the District Court to be reconsidered using strict scrutiny. The court affirmed the District Court&#8217;s dismissal of the Equal Protection claims involving retired law enforcement and the vagueness claims that &#8220;copies&#8221; of certain firearms were not specific enough.<\/p>\n<p>From the<a href=\"http:\/\/michellawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/Kolbe-v.-Hogan_Opinion.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"> synopsis of the decision<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>TRAXLER, Chief Judge, wrote the opinion for the court as to<br \/>\nParts I, II, and III, in which Judge Agee joined.<\/p>\n<p>In April 2013, Maryland passed the Firearm Safety Act<br \/>\n(\u201cFSA\u201d), which, among other things, bans law-abiding citizens,<br \/>\nwith the exception of retired law enforcement officers, from<br \/>\npossessing the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly<br \/>\nkept by several million American citizens for defending their<br \/>\nfamilies and homes and other lawful purposes. Plaintiffs raise<br \/>\na number of challenges to the FSA, contending that the \u201cassault<br \/>\nweapons\u201d ban trenches upon the core Second Amendment right to<br \/>\nkeep firearms in defense of hearth and home, that the FSA\u2019s ban<br \/>\nof certain larger-capacity detachable magazines (\u201cLCMs\u201d)<br \/>\nlikewise violates the Second Amendment, that the exception to<br \/>\nthe ban for retired officers violates the Equal Protection<br \/>\nClause, and that the FSA is void for vagueness to the extent<br \/>\nthat it prohibits possession of \u201ccopies\u201d of the specifically<br \/>\nidentified semi-automatic rifles banned by the FSA. The<br \/>\ndistrict court rejected Plaintiffs\u2019 Second Amendment challenges,<br \/>\nconcluding that the \u201cassault weapons\u201d and larger-capacity<br \/>\nmagazine bans passed constitutional muster under intermediate<br \/>\nscrutiny review. The district court also denied Plaintiffs\u2019<br \/>\nequal protection and vagueness claims.<\/p>\n<p>In our view, <b>Maryland law implicates the core protection of<br \/>\nthe Second Amendment\u2014\u201cthe right of law-abiding responsible<\/p>\n<p>citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,\u201d District of<br \/>\nColumbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008), and we are<br \/>\ncompelled by Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S.<br \/>\n742 (2010), as well as our own precedent in the wake of these<br \/>\ndecisions, to conclude that the burden is substantial and strict<br \/>\nscrutiny is the applicable standard of review for Plaintiffs\u2019<br \/>\nSecond Amendment claim.<\/b> Thus, the panel vacates the district<br \/>\ncourt\u2019s denial of Plaintiffs\u2019 Second Amendment claims and<br \/>\n<b>remands for the district court to apply strict scrutiny<\/b>. The<br \/>\npanel affirms the district court\u2019s denial of Plaintiffs\u2019 Equal<br \/>\nProtection challenge to the statutory exception allowing retired<br \/>\nlaw enforcement officers to possess prohibited semi-automatic<br \/>\nrifles. And, the panel affirms the district court\u2019s conclusion<br \/>\nthat the term \u201ccopies\u201d as used by the FSA is not<br \/>\nunconstitutionally vague.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&nbsp;The decision from the 4th Circuit was not unanimous and contains dissents, concurrences, and multiple parts. Indeed, the full decision is 90 pages long. Needless to say, it will take some time to read and digest this decision. That said, having the case sent back to the District Court to apply strict scrutiny to the Second Amendment claims is a definite win.<\/p>\n<p>It will be interesting to see what legal legerdemain that Judge Catherine C. Blake will employ to assert that Maryland can still ban the most popular firearm in common use in America today even if strict scrutiny is applied.<\/p>\n<p><b>UPDATE<\/b>: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pagunblog.com\/2016\/02\/04\/breaking-major-win-in-4th-circuit-over-maryland-assault-weapons-ban\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Sebastian has more on this case at Shall Not Be Questioned<\/a>. He is correct in saying that the ban on semi-auto rifles and standard capacity magazines still remains in place. The 4th Circuit didn&#8217;t find the law unconstitutional. It merely said that it needs to be reheard using the correct level of scrutiny. This is a win but not a complete win.<\/p>\n<p><b>UPDATE II:<\/b> Attorney Andrew Branca (Law of Self Defense) has his take on the case <a href=\"http:\/\/legalinsurrection.com\/2016\/02\/big-2a-win-4th-circuit-applies-strict-scrutiny-to-maryland-gun-control-law\/#more-159934\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><b>UPDATE III:<\/b> Gun rights scholar and attorney David Kopel <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/volokh-conspiracy\/wp\/2016\/02\/04\/kolbe-v-hogan-4th-circuit-requires-strict-scrutiny-for-maryland-ban-on-magazines-and-semiautomatics\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">examines the case in detail in the Washington Post&#8217;s Volokh Conspiracy blog<\/a>. As he notes, the Second Amendment protections should extend to gun parts (magazines) and that strict scrutiny is appropriate in this case.<\/p>\n<p><b>UPDATE IV:<\/b> Dave Hardy <a href=\"http:\/\/armsandthelaw.com\/archives\/2016\/02\/great_fourth_ci.php\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">weighs in on Kolbe<\/a>. He makes note of the dissent and the response from Judge Traxler to it.<\/p>\n<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has not been too good for gun rights in the past few years.&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":1,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1330,1983,707,19,1984],"class_list":["post-1096","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-kolbe-v-hogan","tag-kolbe-v-omalley","tag-maryland","tag-second-amendment","tag-strict-scrutiny"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1096","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1096"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1096\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10614,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1096\/revisions\/10614"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1096"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1096"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1096"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}