If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms April Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***

Reply to thread

Message

Bruen was technically a 14th amendment case via incorporation of the 2nd amendment. The incorporation doctrine is based on the Due Process Clause, not the Equal Protection Clause.

In Maryland, "civilians" are allowed to own an SBR if it's been registered as such with the ATF and it doesn't fall under the AWB for other reasons. So again, it wouldn't be in scope of what's challenged in Snope. Still, an unexpectedly (to me) wide ranging decision is possible.

[QUOTE="Parker Schreiber, post: 9353132, member: 76060"] Bruen was technically a 14th amendment case via incorporation of the 2nd amendment. The incorporation doctrine is based on the Due Process Clause, not the Equal Protection Clause. In Maryland, "civilians" are allowed to own an SBR if it's been registered as such with the ATF and it doesn't fall under the AWB for other reasons. So again, it wouldn't be in scope of what's challenged in Snope. Still, an unexpectedly (to me) wide ranging decision is possible. [/QUOTE]

Verification