"Maryland's assault weapons ban argued in federal court"

[ke6guj]

Wrong. You guys are mixing up two different MD AWB cases.

This case was heard by the trial court judge on 2014 July 22nd and, acc to the news article linked in the OP, "It could be a few months before the judge makes a decision in this challenge."

The MD AWB case you linked was argued back in 2014 Feb.

you sure about that?

from the link it appears that this is the case argued on July 22 and the ruling was made today, approx 3 weeks later.

2014-07-22 75 0 Motion Hearing held on 7/22/2014 re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Marcus L. Brown, Martin J. O'Malley, Maryland State Police, Douglas F. Gansler, 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, Inc., National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc., Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Atlantic Guns, Inc., Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., Wink's Sporting Goods, Inc., Andrew C. Turner, Stephen V Kolbe before Judge Catherine C. Blake. (Court Reporter: Gail Simpkins) (J Herndon, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

2014-07-28 76 0 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 7-22-2014, motions hearing, before Judge Blake. Court Reporter/Transcriber Gail Simpkins, Telephone number 410-962-4536. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER... Redaction Request due 8/18/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/28/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/27/2014. (gak, Court Reporter) (Entered: 07/28/2014)

2014-08-12 78 0 MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 8/12/14. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/12/2014) 2014-08-12 1407 5cd35051d83bb3361941da6ad917d672c3b15938


2014-08-12 79 0 ORDER denying as moot 20 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 32 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint; granting 44 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 55 Plaintiffs' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 65 Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude; denying 47 John Cutonilli's Motion for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae; granting 45 63 Defendants' Unopposed Motions to Seal; and entering judgment in favor of the Defendants. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 8/12/14. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/12/2014)

[ke6guj]

Wrong. You guys are mixing up two different MD AWB cases.

what is the name of the case in your OP?

[RobertMW]

The MD AWB case you linked was argued back in 2014 Feb.

What happened in February was the filing of Amicus Briefs, Depositions, and Motions. It appears that nothing was in court until July 22nd.

This kind of case doesn't move like a criminal trial with a Jury. The evidence does not need to be presented to anyone other than the Judge, so the process turns into: Gather evidence, File Briefs, wait for trial date, upon trial date state "We would like to know your decision," then wait for said decision, or an order for more clarifying evidence.

The Judge apparently had enough.

[Paladin]

You guys could be right!

(I don't know whether that's better for our side or not....)

One thing I noticed in the OP's linked article & video was the lack of details to identify the case. Other than naming a plaintiff's attorney (John Sweeney), there's not much info. Since Sweeney is listed as an attorney in the case decided today, I'm assuming they're one and the same. But when the article said it would be months before a decision (rather than merely weeks), and this decision was 67 pages long, I doubted they were the same case.

I guess I've been conditioned by Peruta/Richards and Palmer to expect decisions to take longer than predicted rather than shorter....

"Upward and onward." The sooner these cases get to SCOTUS, the better. (Unless Repubs take the Senate in 2014 and keep it and take the Presidency in 2016! )

[Strongisland]

How come they don't just argue it on the basis of a ruger 10/22 with cosmetic features rather than an ar 15

[Patagonicus]

Oh! Sh*t! Now I know why we were in Iraq! It was THOSE weapons of mass destruction. The semi auto ar15s and semi auto ak 47s with, pistol grips, forward grips and muzzle breaks. NOW it's all coming together.

No kidding! Following along with that "logic," our military did in fact find WMD in Iraq. I'm sure our troops seized many semi and full auto small arms.

I know there's a lot to choose from, but this is the (most recent) clearest example of a judge letting her preconceived biases override a basic application of the Constitution. What a crock.

[RobertMW]

How come they don't just argue it on the basis of a ruger 10/22 with cosmetic features rather than an ar 15

Lol, can someone configure a 10/22 that is only capable of shooting 22 Short? Then make it look like a super-mall-ninja gun? That would be a laughable one to hold up in court and call it a weapon of mass killing.