Kolbe v O'Malley being Appealed to CA4

[pcfixer]

I have never seen so many lies being fabricated within an official writ in all of my life. If the person responsible for this document could be charged with libel, they would be spending the rest of their natural life in prison.

I am disgusted with what I have read, but it also terrifies me that a court could possible rule in their favor.

Hold on to your hats boys, this is going to be a good one.

Jim Sm

so if they testify under oath in court, they could be charged with both?

me too-thanks for explaining.

100% agree......

 

[rambling_one]

Because of a neighborhood pedophile I got to sit in on quite a few court cases the last two years.

"Do you swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God?"
"I do."
"How do you plead?"
"Not guilty."

There was nothing truthful about his responses. The guy got 92 years.

 

[DC-W]

Put in your time-off requests now. Hearing set for 3/24/15

WTOP Story
http://wtop.com/maryland/2015/01/federal-court-hear-arguments-maryland-gun-control-law/

Daily Record also has it (requires subscription)
http://thedailyrecord.com/2015/01/19/appeals-court-will-hear-maryland-gun-case-in-march/

 

[swinokur]

road trip?

 

[GTOGUNNER]

How I would love for Frosh to tell the Judges that the law passes constitutional muster and then sit down.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Can the Governor's general counsel provide an amici? I know we are past the circuit appeal stage for this case, but could that have possible? Would it be possible for an amici in a cert petition? (Should we get that far).

In other words, could the governor's office provide a competing view point within the state's government?? Or does the AG have the sole and only ability to present the state's position?

I'm just curious for my own personal knowledge.

 

[dblas]

Hold off on putting in time off until we have firm date. The window is March 22 - march 25.

Calendar is posted here: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/calendar/03222016.htm

So far no cases listed.

 

[krucam]

Here's the Reply Brief from the good guys on Friday 1/16. Good read...very hard hitting, hits on the retired LEO exemption as well. I've become very impressed with Mr. Sweeney's briefs throughout this case's history.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ley_Reply-Brief-for-Plaintiffs-Appellants.pdf

 

[DC-W]

Hold off on putting in time off until we have firm date. The window is March 22 - march 25.

Calendar is posted here: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/calendar/03222016.htm

So far no cases listed.

Where did WTOP get 3/24 from?

 

[babalou]

date

Where did WTOP get 3/24 from?

saw that on Drudge this morning.

 

[camobob]

Road trip might be cool.
I've never been to one of these - is it something that they wrap up in a day?

 

[BossmanPJ]

Covered the scheduled case and dates in WJZ news at 5 pm this evening.

 

[krucam]

Road trip might be cool.
I've never been to one of these - is it something that they wrap up in a day?

Yep. I went to CA4 for the Woollard hearing. Dress properly, you'll be required to leave your cell at Security, Judges on the panel will be announced the morning of arguments. The Court rooms are not that big. I got a decent seat (sat next to MSP Colonel Brown) by getting there 30 mins prior to start. It was pretty full when things started.

 

[Abulg1972]

"The District Court found that the Act prohibits a 'class' of arms. JA 181. It
is undisputed that the Prohibited Firearms and Magazines are popular and are
commonly kept and used for lawful purposes, including self-defense. Therefore,
the Prohibited Firearms and Magazines are protected by the Second Amendment.
Thus, the Act cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller
and should be held unconstitutional without further consideration."

This is the first brief I've read that really excites me and makes me feel that, if the 4th Circuit peeps are wearing their thinking caps, we actually have a shot. To me, this case is more than the 2nd Amendment and "guns". It's about whether a bunch of elected clowns can just do whatever they want, for whatever reason(s) they want, because it feels good notwithstanding the rights it may impact.

 

[dblas]

Where did WTOP get 3/24 from?

saw that on Drudge this morning.

They both are parroting the Daily Record Article. Perhaps the Daily Record got it from the clerk's office or perhaps the AG's office.

I checked with our attorney's and they have not heard any additional information.

 

[Blacksmith101]

That brief was a very good read. I am learning a lot about the Law following these cases.

 

[BDWMS]

I try not to get overly confident, but I am impressed with this brief. Really, how could the court NOT find in our favor? Even if I wasn't a gun owner and did not have a dog in the fight, this makes sense. Seems like the state didn't make its case.

 

[MJD438]

I try not to get overly confident, but I am impressed with this brief. Really, how could the court NOT find in our favor? Even if I wasn't a gun owner and did not have a dog in the fight, this makes sense. Seems like the state didn't make its case.

It reads very similar to their case in Woolard...they won that one.

 

[Malachi.2.15]

Just checked..."the identity of the assigned panel is released on the morning of oral argument" so we won't know the panel make up until the day of. For concealed carry, we only had Obama and Clinton appointees.

There are 17 judges...

Reagan appointees - 3
HW Bush appointees - 2
Clinton appointees - 4
W appointees - 3
Obama appointees -5 (scary isn't it...)

That makes 8 republican appointees and 9 democrat appointees from which a 3 member panel will be named. Want to run the probability analysis that we "randomly" get a friendly panel (defined as at least 2 of the 3 being republican appointees)?

 

[Brooklyn]

Suffers from the fatal flaw of being contradicted by the studies he actually conducted.

That's going to leave a mark. With luck it will show up in a nice opinion by Scalia as the only thing that remains of his work..