A customer shot and killed a hatchet-wielding man attacking a clerk at a convenience store in Burien Sunday morning.

A bad start to a day that ends the way it should – the attacker stopped by a concealed carry customer in the shop. Way to go, Mr. “regular customer.”

The 4th Circuit Court ruled on an assault weapon ban in Maryland. They said, in part:

Strict scrutiny, then, is the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to the ban of semi- automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

…..

“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 of review for Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim. Thus, the panel vacates the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims and remands for the district court to apply strict scrutiny.“

It was a 2-1 majority. To put it technically, “Suck on that one, anti-rights cultists!”

Ahem. That is to say, “I’d count that as a potentially important win.”

Unlikely to pass, but a good idea none the less. The bill would remove the $200 tax stamp on suppressors and make them a normal 4473 item handled by FFLs the way a firearm would be as far as the FedGov is concerned.

Yes, I know they shouldn’t be regulated at all beyond a basic buyer-beware consumer-safety sort of “do they work as advertised” thing, but it would be another step in the right direction. It would also help the economy by increasing demand for something domestically-made.